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 Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Gillian Keegan)
We remain committed to understanding and addressing ethnic disparities in maternal mortality rates. A new office for health improvement and disparities will be launched on 1 October, which will make addressing disparities in health outcomes a priority. In January, the then patient safety Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), announced a £500,000 fund for a maternity leadership programme. NHS England recently published its equity and equality guidance, asking all local maternity systems to produce action plans to improve equity in maternal outcomes.
Robbie Moore
This month, I was lucky enough to meet Fazeela Hanif and her team at the Highfield Centre in Keighley, who recently launched a digital health hub that, among other things, creates a safe place for ethnic minority women to access maternal health and wellbeing provision. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating her and her team? Will she explain what the Government are doing to support places such as the Highfield Centre in Keighley to deliver such services?
Gillian Keegan
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the team at the Highfield Centre in Keighley on what sounds like an excellent approach, showing real leadership. The Government are committed to ensuring that women across the country are able to access the support that they need. The NHS long-term plan includes a commitment for a further 24,000 women to be able to access specialist perinatal mental health care by 2023-24, building on the additional 30,000 women accessing those services each year by 2020-21 under existing plans. Specialist care will also be available from preconception to 24 months after birth, which will provide an extra year of support.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
After recent statistics showing that women in black, Asian and minority ethnic communities are 32% less likely to take up help for post-natal depression, what discussions has the Minister undertaken with her counterparts in the devolved institutions, particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly, to ensure that women from ethnic minorities are offered the correct care if needed, to remove the stigma that they may feel they might encounter?
Gillian Keegan
I agree that that is a very important area that should concern us all. We look forward to working with the hon. Member; I will arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister before Christmas.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
The Five X More campaign has done incredible work highlighting the disparities in maternal outcomes for women from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Its single biggest ask is that the Government set targets to drive down those disparities. Can my hon. Friend indicate what progress is being made and whether the Government will set those targets, as the campaign calls for?
Gillian Keegan
The Government are clear that there is absolutely no place for inequalities or racism in our society. If anyone experiences that in the NHS’s support or approach, that is obviously something that we are deeply concerned about. The Minister for Women and Equalities has been consulting with senior midwives and clinicians from ethnic minorities to discuss how we can improve the experience for all. Discussing targets and so on will be part of that ongoing process, and I am sure that they will look forward to meeting my right hon. Friend to discuss the matter further as we work towards improving the system for all.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
All those at risk of persecution in Afghanistan, including religious and ethnic minorities, are eligible to apply to the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which will welcome up to a total of 20,000 vulnerable Afghans to the UK over a five-year period. The impact of the crisis in Afghanistan on women and girls and on other vulnerable groups, including religious and ethnic minorities and LGBT+ people, is of deep concern and has been discussed frequently by the Cabinet. The Taliban must respect the rights of all minority groups, both now and in the future, and we will hold them to account for their actions.
Jeff Smith
I agree with the Minister on that. It has been a depressing week in Afghanistan, with primary school students returning to gender-segregated classes, older girls excluded altogether, the Ministry of Women’s Affairs closed down and female employees told not to return to work. How, specifically, can we use our leverage, particularly our financial and economic leverage, to hold the Taliban to account for their promises?
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the issues around women and girls—particularly education, an area in which we have done a lot of work over a number of years. It is important that we do all we can to maintain the progress that has been made.
When it comes to what more we can do, the Prime Minister has been very clear that we will judge the regime by its choices and actions rather than by its words, and that any relationship with a future Taliban Government would need to be calibrated according to their respect for fundamental rights for women and girls. Lord Ahmad addressed the United Nations Human Rights Council on 24 August to underscore our commitment to protecting the human rights of all Afghan people.
Carol Monaghan
Since 2001, life chances for women and girls in Afghanistan have been dramatically improved, but with the Taliban’s return, that is obviously under severe threat. What discussions is the Minister having with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that long-term funding is channelled into initiatives that promote and support women and girls in Afghanistan?
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. Life expectancy increased from 56 years in 2002 to 64 in 2018, and over the past six years the UK has helped more than 250,000 girls to attend school through the girls’ education challenge fund. As for the question of engagement, the Afghanistan response is obviously taking place across Whitehall, involving many Departments. We have also hosted roundtables with non-governmental organisations in London in order to understand better how we can support the work that they do, and meetings have taken place in both August and September to discuss continued humanitarian access.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
As we heard from the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), some worrying signs are emerging from Afghanistan of intolerance towards women and girls, and towards other minority groups as well. None the less, the words are warm. Does my hon. Friend not agree that, right now, we must take the Taliban at their word, we must hold their feet to the fire, and we must make sure that they do what they say they are going to do? If they do not, of course we must then take steps against them, but for now, let us work with the diplomatic channels to try and force them to join the rest of the civilised world.
Wendy Morton
The then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), made a statement to the House on 6 September restating our commitment—particularly in respect of human rights—to
“hold the Taliban and other factions to account for their conduct”.—[Official Report, 6 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 44.]
On 15 September, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), said in a debate on the Joint Committee that we would take forward our priorities, including human rights,
“at the UN General Assembly…with our international partners.”—[Official Report, 15 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 1057.]
As I have said, it is very clear to me that any relationship with a future Taliban Government would need to be calibrated according to their respect for the fundamental rights of women and girls.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Taliban, who banned women from playing all sport during their rule in the 1990s, have indicated that women and girls will face restrictions in playing sport, which has caused the country’s women’s football team to flee to Pakistan. What collaborative discussions has the Minister had with her Home Office colleagues about setting up special visa categories for at-risk Afghan sportswomen and artists to enable them to settle permanently in the UK?
Wendy Morton
If the hon. Lady wishes to highlight specific cases, it is probably best for her to raise them with my colleagues in the Home Office, but the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), is sitting on the Front Bench and will have heard what she said. More broadly, it is important that we continue to hold the Taliban to account if they do not respect the rights of all minority groups, now and in the future.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
In July this year we published the health and disability Green Paper and the national disability strategy, which takes into account the impacts of covid-19 and the impact on disabled people in particular. It also focuses on the issues that affect disabled people in general, which we want to address on an ongoing basis.
Dr Evans
A disabled constituent from Bosworth wrote to me about difficulties in travelling within the UK. I wrote to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which wrote back referring to the national strategy for disabled people and a vision of making the UK the most accessible country in Europe by 2025. What work is being done in respect of enabling the Department for Transport, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the DCMS jointly to make the UK a place where disabled people can work, travel and play?
Guy Opperman
I want to reassure my hon. Friend’s constituent and indeed my hon. Friend, who has done so much already for his constituency and the many tourist destinations on his patch, that we are on a mission to make the UK the most accessible tourist destination in the world.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Disabled people, on average, face increased costs of £583 a month. Worryingly, the High Court case against the Government on the lack of a £20 uplift in legacy benefits has been delayed owing to a lack of available judges. The Government’s strategy for disabled people promised better cross-departmental working. What pressure is the Minister putting on the Department for Work and Pensions to publish its commissioned research on the uses of health and disability benefits to ensure that we assess the adequacy of the various benefit rates that apply to disabled people?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Lady will be aware that we have published the health and disability Green Paper. We have also published a strategy, and we are working across Government to ensure that all these matters are being addressed.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Kemi Badenoch)
We are pleased to see an overall increase in entries for STEM A-levels and GCSEs by girls this year, including a notable 12.7% increase in A-level computing entries. We want to see further progress, and we are funding interventions in STEM subjects such as the gender balance in computing programme to further improve girls’ participation.
Antony Higginbotham
One of the biggest barriers to getting students to study STEM subjects is the lack of high quality, qualified teachers in the area, so will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating organisations such as Burnley College in my constituency, and also BAE Systems, which works across Lancashire and encourages and teaches young people the value of STEM subjects? Will she join me in encouraging more employers to sign up to such schemes, so that we can get more children into STEM?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the work that is taking place in his constituency, and I extend my thanks to Burnley College and BAE Systems. We recognise the value that early interactions with employers can have for girls’ ambitions, and the Government continue to lead work to enhance STEM outreach. I should point out that secondary schools are expected to provide pupils with at least one meaningful interaction with employers per year, with a particular emphasis on STEM employers, and we will continue to encourage them to do that.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister must surely know that the more emphasis we can put on stimulating young people at the earliest age, the better. Pre-school and infant school—that is the time to have imagination and to get girls interested in maths and science. Does she agree that we need to make special efforts at that early age?
Kemi Badenoch
I agree that these things start at an early age. I learned how to code at the age of seven, and I do not think it is a coincidence that I am an engineer by training today. These things make a difference, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that young people, especially young girls and women, are able to pursue careers in STEM.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
It is a delight to address my beloved former colleague on the Treasury Bench. Is she aware of the extraordinary work being done in the new model of technology and engineering in a radical new form of tertiary educational institution in Hereford that blends further education and higher education with a commitment to the enfranchisement, support and development of women in engineering?
Kemi Badenoch
I was not aware of the fantastic work that is taking place in Hereford, although I suspect that the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), is. I would particularly love to hear more about this, and I would be very happy for my right hon. Friend to write to me and share more about what is taking place there.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
The Nationality and Borders Bill, which is part of our new plan for immigration, seeks to build a fair but firm asylum and legal migration system. On 16 September, we published an equality impact assessment for the policies being taken forward through the Bill. This includes an assessment of the potential impacts on people who are LGBTQ+.
Olivia Blake
The Nationality and Borders Bill raises the standard of proof for assessing whether someone has grounds to fear persecution to the higher level of balance of probability. If the Minister were an LGBTQ+ asylum seeker, how would they prove, on the balance of probability, that they were, and how would they go about finding proof after a life of trying to hide their identity for fear of persecution?
Tom Pursglove
I am mindful of the point that the hon. Lady makes. She will appreciate the fact that I am new in role in the Department and that I am getting up to speed with the Bill. We began taking evidence in the Bill Committee yesterday, and the line-by-line scrutiny will begin after the recess. I take on board the point that she raises, but what is crucial in taking forward the measures in the Bill is how we operationalise those plans, and I would fully expect that we will be sympathetic in taking proper account of the issue that she raises.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
Understanding why labour market disparities exist between ethnic groups is complex, and work is ongoing across Government to understand better why these disparities exist. In particular, we have a national programme of mentoring circles involving employers who are offering specialised support to unemployed young ethnic minority jobseekers.
Dame Meg Hillier
I am sure the Minister was as shocked as the rest of us to discover that the increase in young black unemployment was exponentially higher than the increase in young white unemployment at the end of the last quarter of last year, and it has not got better. What specific programmes will he undertake to make sure that we do not see the additional scarring of a generation of young black people aged 16 to 24?
Guy Opperman
The Government are already acting on this precise point, and in the hon. Lady’s Hackney constituency the jobcentre is working with the council and with local charities as part of the improving outcomes for young black men programme. The focus of that programme is on harnessing successful young black men’s potential and tackling specific inequalities where they exist.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
I am the Government’s new trade envoy to Pakistan, so does my hon. Friend agree that greater trade links and investment between our two great countries can only improve jobs and prosperity for all our communities?
Mr Speaker
Order. That is completely irrelevant to the question, unfortunately. I would love to take it, but it has no link.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
As the hon. Lady will understand, the vaccine roll-out is key. I was delighted to have my third jab this morning, and I would urge all colleagues to make the case for the vaccine roll-out, which is important for everyone but particularly for those with protected characteristics and those of us who are in the 1% who were shielded throughout the pandemic.
Marion Fellows
The outbreak of covid-19 posed a risk to all workers, but especially to those with particular disabilities and those who are immunocompromised. The UK Government’s national disability strategy could have made progress in supporting those workers by introducing statutory timescales on reasonable adjustments for employers, but it did not. What priority on the strategy is the Minister communicating to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy? Will representations be made to add timescales for statutory reasonable adjustments?
Guy Opperman
The Government are working on a number of issues, but the hon. Lady will be aware of the Access to Work programme, which has introduced a more flexible working offer to support disabled people to move into and retain employment, including with homeworking support and mental health support. Of course, the kickstart scheme also has more than £2 billion of funding.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Baroness Lawrence’s report, “An Avoidable Crisis”, found that the Government’s failure to ensure workplaces are covid secure had a disproportionate impact on black, Asian and ethnic minority workers. They are more likely to be trapped in low-paid, precarious work, more likely to be overlooked in decisions on workplace protections and more likely to be struggling to self-isolate due to the risk of financial loss. Why are the Government still refusing to require employers to report occupational covid infections and to publish their risk assessments to keep these workers safe?
Guy Opperman
I am sure the hon. Lady will meet the relevant Ministers, but she will be aware of the disability strategy and the Access to Work programme that we have introduced, which has a more flexible working offer for disabled people with the chance for homeworking support and mental health and wellbeing support. There are also 20 black, Asian and minority ethnic mentors working across the country, from Birmingham to Brent and from Glasgow to Manchester, to ensure there is true access.
Anneliese Dodds
I thank the Minister, and I hope he will at least attempt to answer my second question. People with protected characteristics have taken a disproportionate hit to their workplace income during the pandemic. Ethnicity pay reporting is a vital tool to address that. Three years have passed since the McGregor-Smith report recommended it, yet two days ago a Minister said that the Government still need to work out even what it makes sense to report on. Why are the incomes of black, Asian and ethnic minority people of apparently so little interest to this Government?
Guy Opperman
I would make two points. First, the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), has reminded me that the Government will be responding to the matter this autumn. Secondly, I was shielded myself. I had my third vaccine this morning. We need to make the case that everybody needs to go out and get their third vaccine or their booster straightaway.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Being online is a critical part of a politician’s work, yet in the past two weeks we have seen such an appalling level of abuse targeted at women and people of race that a Conservative Member has come off social media and an Opposition Member has been unable to go to their own party conference. Will the Minister please set out what we can do to get online companies to take more care on the level of abuse and harassment they tackle online?
Mr Speaker
Order. It is not related really to the question. Are you sure you can answer it in relation to the question, Minister?
Guy Opperman
I can, Mr Speaker. This is a very serious matter and it does touch upon the point raised. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and many others deserve the full protection of the police and so many others, in our workplace, out of our workplace, on an ongoing basis. We stand with all of them, regardless of party.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Following the 2008 crash, pregnant women and new mothers were made redundant in their thousands, unfairly selected because they were mothers, in what has been described as “straight up discrimination on an industrial scale”. The Taylor review and the UK Government research both confirmed that such discrimination still exists. So as the furlough scheme ends, pregnant women and new mothers need immediate action on this. Will the Minister press his colleagues to bring forward the much-delayed employment Bill and take immediate action to tackle pregnancy and maternity discrimination?
Guy Opperman
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer given by the Minister for Care, who represents the Department of Health and Social Care. I also respectfully invite the hon. Lady to meet Ministers from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy specifically to raise the employment status of the women she identifies.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
I am delighted to announce the appointment of LGBT business champion Iain Anderson, who will work with the Government, building the evidence base on how to ensure that LGBT people can be themselves in the workplace. Among his first priorities will be kick-starting a business-led mentor network, including small and medium-sized enterprises, supporting the global LGBT conference and engaging businesses to highlight the economic case for LGBT inclusion.
Ruth Edwards
Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to tackle geographic inequality is by making sure that people can get great jobs and have fulfilling careers wherever they live? Will she join me in backing the east midlands freeport business case, which would create 60,000 jobs across the region?
Kemi Badenoch
I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I point out that the Government are doing just that with our plan for jobs, which included £895 million to recruit an additional 13,500 work coaches by March 2021—which we achieved. She raises an important point and we are, of course, glad to support her region and all regions across the country.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Next month, this Government will cut the £20 uplift to universal credit. However, this summer, a staggering seven in 10 UC claimants seeking support from the StepChange Debt Charity were women. StepChange also reported that from October 70% of women receiving UC will see their monthly spending exceed their income. How will the Minister respond to a callous cut that disproportionately impacts women? Better still, will she support cancelling the cut altogether?
Kemi Badenoch
We have had multiple debates on UC, and we have been at pains to say that this extra £20 was a temporary measure brought in because of covid. We are looking after the public finances, we are doing the right thing by taxpayers and we are doing everything we can to support vulnerable people in this country.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I was very sorry to learn of the injuries sustained by Thomas, and it is right that this matter is raised by my hon. Friend. I can assure him and the House that equality applies to all aspects of justice—it always has and it always will.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Guy Opperman
The Government are doing huge amounts to tackle the gender pensions gap. Automatic enrolment is transforming the situation. Women used to be at 38%; they are now at more than 80% of savings on an ongoing basis.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on Parliamentlive.tv.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister (Dominic Raab)
I have been asked to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As the House will know, he has been at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where he has held meetings with world leaders, in particular leaders from countries vulnerable to climate change. He has also met President Biden for discussions on climate, covid and international security.
Robert Largan
GPs have done a brilliant job delivering the vaccination programme. They have had to work very long hours in the most challenging circumstances, and now they are having to deal with a huge covid backlog. As a result, many of my constituents have contacted me, frustrated by how difficult it is to see their GP face to face. Just this week, I have been contacted by someone who was diagnosed with cancer after being taken into hospital. She said to me: “I can’t help but wonder if they’d have caught it sooner if I’d been able to see someone in person, instead of trying to describe my symptoms over the phone.” I therefore ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Government are doing to tackle the covid backlog and get face-to-face GP appointments back as soon as possible.
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a huge champion of his local NHS and I know of his incredible work on the reinstatement of breast cancer screening clinics among other things. I join him in thanking GPs for the heroic job they have done in seeing us through the pandemic. Although appointment numbers have returned to pre-pandemic levels, of course patients and the public rightly expect to see their GP face to face when necessary. As my hon. Friend will know, the Chancellor has funded a £36 billion package to deal with the NHS backlog as well as pursuing our plan for social care.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
The hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) makes an important point that I think Members across the House are concerned about. I join the Deputy Prime Minister in his comments regarding the work of GPs and our local primary care services.
I begin by offering my commiserations to the Prime Minister after he flew away to the US and made absolutely zero progress on the trade deal that he promised us.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister still believe that British workers are
“among the worst idlers in the world”?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I say to the right hon. Lady that, for a start, it is excellent news that, because of our engagement with the US, it has immediately given us a boost to trade and businesses by reinstating travel from the UK to the US.
When it comes to British workers, I say to her that we have got payroll employment back to levels we saw before the pandemic. We have got youth employment rising, businesses advertising over 1 million jobs—a record high—and the fastest economic growth in the G7 this year.
Angela Rayner
Mr Speaker, still no trade deal. The words were those of the Deputy Prime Minister in his book, which he wrote alongside the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Business Secretary. His actions speak even louder than those words. Whatever Conservative Members say, their political choices have made it harder for working families to get by. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how much his universal credit cut and national insurance hike will take from a worker on £18,000 a year, say a shop worker or a travel agent?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The universal credit uplift was always meant to be temporary. We have paid the wages of nearly 12 million workers throughout this pandemic, and we are coming out with rising jobs and rising wages. We would have done none of that if we had taken the right hon. Lady’s advice and not come out of lockdown. Labour has no plan; our plan is working.
Angela Rayner
The Deputy Prime Minister has lots of words for “I don’t know”, so let me help him: his Government chose to cut the income of a worker on £18,000 a year by more than £1,100. That is almost exactly the same as an average annual energy bill. Just as energy prices are ballooning, the Government have chosen to take the money that could cover a year’s-worth of bills out of the pockets of working people. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that the solution is for people to work harder, so can he tell us how many days a worker on the minimum wage would have to work this year in order to afford a night at a luxury hotel in, say, Crete?
The Deputy Prime Minister
If the right hon. Lady wants to talk about taxes and easing the burden on the lowest paid, I will remind her that, whenever the Labour party has gone into government, the economy has nosedived, unemployment has soared and taxes have gone through the roof. Under this Government, we have cut income tax, saving every worker £1,200 each year. We have introduced and extended the national living wage, so that full-time workers are £4,000 better off each year. We have doubled free childcare for working parents, worth up to £5,000 for every child every year. When Labour takes office, unemployment goes up and the economy goes down.
Angela Rayner
The Deputy Prime Minister talks about the economy; he does not even know how much his own holiday cost. Let me tell him: a worker on the minimum wage would need to work an extra 50 days to pay for a single night at his favourite resort—and probably even more if the sea was open.
The very same week that the Government are cutting universal credit, working people face soaring energy bills. The Prime Minister has said that it is just “a short-term problem” and we will leave it to the market to fix. Can the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee that no one will lose their gas or energy supply or be pushed into fuel poverty this winter?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The Business Secretary has made it very clear that energy supplies will continue and that our No. 1 priority is to protect consumers.
Let me remind the right hon. Lady of her words. This was in The Guardian on 11 May, so it must be true. She said that the Labour party must stop
“talking down to people…Working-class people don’t want a handout”,
they want “opportunities”. They are getting those opportunities under a Conservative Government, with catch-up tutoring for more than 2 million children this academic year and hundreds of thousands of jobs for young people under our kickstart scheme, and we are helping more than 1 million people on long-term unemployment under the restart scheme. The right hon. Lady is right: Labour talks down to working people. Under the Conservatives, they get to rise up and fulfil their potential.
Angela Rayner
I notice that we have a shortage of hot air this week, but although the Prime Minister is not here, the Deputy Prime Minister is doing his best to shore up supplies.
You know what, Mr Speaker? The Deputy Prime Minister talks about opportunities, but the Government have axed the green homes grant, scrapped the zero-carbon homes standard and lost the storage facility that held three quarters of our gas. Their failures paved the way for this crisis, which will hit families and businesses, and as usual it will be the British people who will have to pay the price. Will the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee that none of the workers employed by the energy companies will end up unemployed because of his Government’s failures?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Well, there is no shortage of hot air on the Opposition Benches.
The Business Secretary has been crystal clear: we have seen the challenge of wholesale gas prices rise all over the world, and we will maintain supply this year. He has taken targeted action to support the two critical CO2 plants to ensure that we see through not only energy supplies, but food distribution. The reality is that, for all the Opposition’s cheap political barbs, they have no plan. If we had listened to the Labour party, we would not have opened up, we would not be bouncing back, jobs would not be rising and wages would not be rising.
Angela Rayner
Maybe the Deputy Prime Minister should go back to his sun lounger and let me take over. The truth is that the Government were warned about the problems and the energy crisis that we face. And there we have it—absolutely nothing to help the people up and down the country who are working themselves to the ground and are still struggling to make ends meet. This is a Conservative party that does not care about working people.
Families across the country are worried about heating their homes, while the Deputy Prime Minister is complaining about having to share his 115-room taxpayer-funded mansion with the Foreign Secretary—the truth hurts, doesn’t it?—just as his Government are making choices that are making working families’ lives harder. A typical family are facing a tough winter this year: universal credit down 1,000 quid, rent up 150 quid, gas bills up 150 quid, taxes up and food prices soaring. Working people will have to choose whether to feed their kids or heat their homes. The choice for the Deputy Prime Minister is whether he will make their lives easier or harder—so what will he choose? Will the Government cancel the universal credit cut?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady should check her facts, because Chevening is funded by a charity—not a penny of taxpayers’ money.
The most disastrous thing for the energy bills of hard-working people across the country would be to follow Labour’s plan to nationalise the energy companies, which the CBI says would cost as much as £2,000 in bills. This Government are the ones taking action to take the country forward, with a plan for the NHS and a plan for covid, and our plan is working: employment up, job vacancies up and wages up. If we had listened to the Labour party, we would never have come out of lockdown. We are the ones taking the difficult decisions and getting on with the job, and our plan is working.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is bang on. The AUKUS partnership is incredibly important for our security. It builds on what we said in the integrated review about promoting stability in the Indo-Pacific. It builds on our free trade agreement negotiations, including the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. It builds on our membership, as a dialogue partner, of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations—the first new member in more than 20 years. It will provide huge opportunities for jobs and businesses here at home, as part of the levelling-up agenda.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Across Scotland and the UK, millions of families are seeing their incomes slashed by this Tory Government, with a toxic combination of Tory cuts, tax rises and the growing cost of Brexit. The Prime Minister promised that he would make energy bills more than £60 per household cheaper after Brexit. Instead, they could skyrocket by £550 at the worst possible time. The UK Government are slashing universal credit by £1,040, furlough is ending prematurely and a Tory tax hike will leave the majority of families hundreds of pounds worse off next year. Let us be clear: this is a Tory cost of living crisis, and yet again lower and middle-income families will suffer the most. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is time to scrap Tory cuts to universal credit and to introduce an emergency energy payment for lower-income families, so that no one has to choose between heating and eating this winter?
The Deputy Prime Minister
May I say to the hon. Lady that many of those issues are devolved to Scotland? The energy price cap will save 15 million households up to £100 each year. We are also taking targeted measures to extend the warm home discount; that will be £150 knocked off the bills of 780,000 homes. We are providing seasonal cold weather payments to eligible claimants—an extra £25 a week during colder periods. On top of that, we are giving a winter fuel payment to recipients of the state pension. But the crucial thing is that we have rising employment and rising wages, and that will benefit everyone in Scotland and across the UK.
Kirsten Oswald
That is a disappointing and perplexing response from the Deputy Prime Minister, who perhaps needs to go back and look again. I have to say to him: warm words do not heat homes, and unless these Tory cuts are reversed, we will see even more families pushed into hardship and crisis.
Yesterday I met East Renfrewshire Citizens Advice Bureau, who warned of a cost-of-living tsunami hammering families: a universal credit cut, Tory tax hikes, and soaring household bills. Because of this Government’s choices, people are having to choose between heating their homes or feeding their families. For all their empty rhetoric, you cannot level up by making people poorer. So can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he is stubbornly refusing to consider introducing an emergency energy payment that would help families through a very difficult winter?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said, the price cap in place will save £50 million households up to £100 each year. On top of that, because of the approach we have taken with the national living wage, full-time workers will be £4,000 per year better off. But, given the challenges that we understandably face, I think that people expect—including those in Scotland—for us to come together and stop this scaremongering and this sowing of division. That is why I would have thought the hon. Lady would welcome the fact, with some of the challenges that the Scottish ambulance service is facing, that we have the British armed forces helping the people of Scotland.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend; I know he is a great champion for the people in his constituency. I understand that the Department of Transport has been engaging with the transport operators in his constituency. I also understand that South Western Railway intends to increase service levels to their pre-covid timetable by May 2022, and it has ambitions for an increase in the train service frequency on the Great Western Railway route. DFT will of course continue to work with GWR, and I continue to support him in trying to champion commuters and passengers on all those services.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Without a green new deal, the Government are struggling to meet their carbon reduction targets under the Paris agreement. At the same time, the international energy industry is making it clear that there should not be any new exploitation of oil or gas fields if the world does not meet the 2050 target for carbon neutrality. Yet the Government are potentially investing in the new Cambo oilfield in the North sea and also supporting other oilwells across the UK. How can the Government have any credibility when they made a pledge to cease funding oil and gas companies yet this is still going ahead?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We launched the landmark North sea transition deal to transform the oil and gas sector in preparation for net zero, so we have a plan. We have also secured record investment in wind power totalling close to half a billion pounds. We have a world-leading hydrogen strategy, and we are the first major economy in the world to set net zero into law. On Monday at the UN General Assembly, the Prime Minister announced £550 million of official development assistance that will be allocated to support developing countries to meet net zero. We are leading by example at home and abroad.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a powerful champion for patients and his constituents. We have now received applications to be one of the next eight hospitals in our new hospitals programme and I understand that an expression of interest has been submitted proposing developments across Warrington and Halton hospitals. Notwithstanding the smart way in which he has gone about his intervention, he will understand that I cannot comment on particular applications, but there will be a decision by spring 2022.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Net zero is at the heart of everything that we do and we have raised the national living wage, which will save a full-time worker £400 every year.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend knows that today the House will discuss our landmark Subsidy Control Bill, which will allow us to seize the opportunities from having left the EU. Our new control system will provide quicker and more flexible support to British businesses, but he is right in what he said about transparency. Decisions on subsidies that were previously subject to approval by unelected EU bureaucrats will now be decided subject to the scrutiny and rigour of hon. Members across the House. That will give us the transparency and accountability that he wants.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Deputy Prime Minister
We put the UK Infrastructure Bank in Leeds because we love Leeds. The hon. Member asks about inequality and levelling up. The levelling-up agenda will of course help those in the midlands and in the north, but it will also help those in London and the south-east by easing the pressure on the economy, easing the pressure on tax revenues and easing the pressure on planning.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
We are very clear: vaccines are saving lives, and they are also boosting the economy because they have allowed us to open up. They are particularly important for the risk to vulnerable people, including carers in care homes. Over 90% of care home staff have received their first dose ahead of the November deadline. We encourage others to get vaccinated, and the Department of Health and Social Care is currently considering whether to make vaccination for not just covid but flu a condition of deployment for frontline workers in health settings and care settings.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course the Treasury assesses these measures very carefully. We are supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs for young people under our kickstart scheme. We are taking a range of other measures, including the restart scheme. Of course we look at the tax burden, but I would just remind the hon. Lady that we are the ones who have taken—[Hon. Members: “Answer the question!”] We are the ones who have saved the average worker £1,200 every year. We doubled the free childcare for working parents. Frankly, I say to the hon. Lady that we are of course mindful of the pressure on public services, as with the private sector, and we are doing everything we can, but the SNP opposed coming out of lockdown. The SNP opposed—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, we have to try to get through some questions. It is those on your own side you are stopping asking questions, Deputy Prime Minister, with too long an answer.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Can I say to my hon. Friend that I know how much this campaign means to her personally? I know that hon. Members across the House will be very proud of the tenacious way she is pursuing that campaign. Of course I will join her in Westminster Hall, and I would encourage all hon. Members to do the same.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Deputy Prime Minister
We absolutely agree that having a smart and pragmatic approach is the only way that we will be able to uphold the Good Friday agreement for all communities in Northern Ireland. Notwithstanding what the reporting has said, I know, having been in Carbis Bay with the Prime Minister and the President, that the President understands our view and we have explained our position, as well his taking into account what the EU has said.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
The House will know that the River Wye is one of the most beautiful rivers in our country and also a priceless national asset, yet it is being threatened by phosphate pollution. Will my right hon. Friend press colleagues in the Government and in No. 10 to work with us to push the agencies and other interested bodies to a long-term integrated plan to clean up the River Wye?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course, the Government understand, and my right hon. Friend champions eloquently, the importance of the River Wye. We will do everything we can to support him with preserving it for future generations.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Dominic Raab
I have young children, and I know what it is like at Christmas when, as well as being a time of great happiness, there is also a certain degree of trepidation when they go for the presents in the way the hon. Lady describes. I reassure her that manufacturers and distributers must provide information on the age-appropriate use of toys. The UK Office for Product Safety and Standards will take action to remove products online that pose any risk, and our product safety framework is being reviewed to ensure that it is fit for purpose, that it is updated in line with new products going on to the market and—above all—that it protects consumers.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Stoke-on-Trent has so far received £29 million from the transforming cities fund and 550 jobs from the Home Office, and Kidsgrove has received a £17.6 million town deal. After 70 years of neglect by the Labour party, Stoke-on-Trent is firmly on the map. We also have a £73.5 million levelling-up fund bid. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Stoke-on-Trent, which is now hungry, gets its just deserts?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his constituency. He is right to say that we are giving all the support we can, and that the only reason we are seeing that level of prosperity is that we have employment rising, youth unemployment coming up, and rising wages. That is happening under this Government, because the Opposition have no plan whatsoever.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
May I thank you personally, Mr Speaker, for the kindness you showed during my recent illness?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that town halls know better than Whitehall when it comes to levelling up? Will he pass on my suggestion to the Prime Minister that he host a cross-party summit in Downing Street with local government leaders and Mayors, to discuss how they can be empowered to unlock that potential?
Dominic Raab
Whatever our differences, it is fantastic to see the right hon. Gentleman back in the Chamber, contributing and holding the Government to account.
The agenda for levelling up must involve a team effort, with central Government, local authorities and the many metro Mayors across the country. I support the spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman said, and we will do everything we can to work with him.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
In Stroud the Nailsworth Climate Action Network held a well-attended retrofit fair to help people learn about the benefits of insulating homes and the options available. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate that group on its constructive approach to this difficult issue, provide the House with confidence that the Government are creating even more solutions for energy efficient homes, and let us know when there will be more details of that work?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend and support all the efforts at a local level that she is pursuing. We are backing that up at a national level, by requiring all new build homes by 2025 to have low-carbon heating and world-leading levels of energy efficiency. That is on top of the record investment in wind power, and on top of producing a world-leading hydrogen strategy. This is about bringing the world together, because it will require an international solution at the COP26 global climate summit in November.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Some 239 jobs in the Vauxhall plant in Luton South are at risk this week due to the semiconductor chip shortage and furlough ending this month. The Government have failed to safeguard jobs, failed to maintain key strategic supply lines, and failed to support the UK’s capability in areas such as silicon. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline what No.10 will do to ensure that the UK automotive sector remains competitive globally, and that skilled jobs in towns such as mine, Luton, are saved?
Dominic Raab
I do not think it quite right to say that the Government have not been supporting workers. We have paid the wages of nearly 12 million workers throughout the pandemic. Clearly that cannot continue indefinitely, but I reassure the hon. Lady specifically that the Government are investing in supporting gigafactories. We will be investing in the technologies of the future that will create the jobs of the future in her constituency and right across the UK.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
All hon. Members enjoy the opportunity to eat British food, drink British drink and enjoy British flowers. I am joined by all of Cornwall’s MPs in pressing the Home Secretary to renew the seasonal agricultural workers scheme for next year—that is 30,000 people—and also to allow them to pick daffodils. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please speak to the Home Secretary, to remind her of the urgency of getting that scheme renewed?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is a powerful champion for his constituency and the region. I will of course pass on his suggestion and advice to the Home Secretary. I believe that she has been lobbied from various other quarters. We are very mindful of the impact on seasonal workers, and we will make sure we get the right balance.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
A former junior Minister for courts and justice once told this House that he was
“absolutely committed to doing everything”
he could
“to improve the treatment of victims in the justice system.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 20.]
After six years and three manifesto commitments, we are still waiting for the Government to deliver their promised victims Bill and that junior Minister is now the sixth Justice Secretary in that time. Will he commit here today to delivering that long-overdue victims Bill and bringing justice to millions of victims across the country, including my constituent who was left homeless, jobless and traumatised through the court system?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady. I can absolutely make that commitment. On day one, I looked at the plans and expedited the work that we are doing on that. [Interruption.] Well, if she will give me a chance; I have not been in the job a full week.
I can also tell the hon. Lady what we are doing right now with the women and girls victims strategy, which we published in July. We have provided a national police lead who reports directly to the Home Secretary. We have invested £30 million in making streets safer at night, which is particularly important for women so that they have the reassurance they need that there are no no-go areas and no de facto curfews. We have also introduced 24/7 rape and sexual assault helplines.
I gently say to the hon. Lady that, in terms of standing up for the victims of crime, I lament the fact that the Labour party voted against our Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, requiring all violent offenders, all rapists, all child rapists, to serve at least two thirds of their sentence behind bars. You cannot stand up for victims unless you stand up for tough sentencing.
Violence Against Women and Girls: Police Response
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I remind all hon. and right hon. Members that the House’s sub judice resolution means that cases in which proceedings are active, including where charges have been made, should not be referred to during questions. I am sure that all Members will wish to respect that resolution, especially where there is a prospect of court cases in the future. Nobody would want to put those cases at risk.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on what action she will be taking in response to the report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary on the police response to violence against women and girls.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
Crimes of violence against women and girls are utterly despicable. They inflict profound and lasting harm on the victims and have a damaging impact on our society as a whole. That is why the Government are taking concerted action to crack down on these appalling crimes.
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for providing me with an opportunity, as the newly appointed Safeguarding Minister, to outline our work in this area, and I very much hope to work collegially across the House. I know that every parliamentarian shares our concern about these serious issues.
The Home Secretary commissioned this report from the police inspectorate to help police forces strengthen their response. We are carefully considering the inspectorate’s findings, and we expect the police and others to take any necessary action. The Home Secretary has committed to considering the report’s full recommendations and will update Parliament when she has done so.
We supported the inspectorate’s recommendation in its interim report in July to introduce a full-time national police lead for violence against women and girls. I am pleased to say that Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth has been appointed to the role, and we look forward to working with her.
While the report shows that there is more to do, we must not lose sight of the fact that we have made progress. The report acknowledges improvements in the police response to these crimes, including better identification of repeat victims, improved techniques to collect evidence, and improved safeguarding measures.
Since 2010, the Government have taken significant action in this space, including introducing new laws to tackle stalking, forced marriage, female genital mutilation and so-called revenge porn. Importantly, we have brought forward the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is sitting beside me on the Front Bench, and to the Prime Minister for playing a vital role. We have more than doubled the safer streets fund, while our unprecedented police recruitment drive is putting more officers in our communities to protect the public and drive down crime.
We are determined to go further, which is why we published our new tackling violence against women and girls strategy in July, and we will publish a complementary domestic abuse strategy this year. Our new strategy will drive our effort to prevent these crimes, ensure that victims get the support they need, and bring perpetrators to justice. It details a number of steps, including immediate investment in measures to make our streets safer, more funding for specialist support services, and a multimillion-pound public behaviour campaign to challenge unacceptable behaviour.
Public protection is our No. 1 priority. Violence against women and girls has absolutely no place in our society, and we are committed to working with the police and other key partners to confront these crimes wherever they appear.
Mr Speaker
We come to the Mother of the House, Harriet Harman.
Ms Harman
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am really grateful to you for granting this urgent question.
I thank the Minister for her response and welcome her to her new role and wish her well in it. I will support her in her work, but we need a greater sense of urgency. In just the last few days, there have been more horrific killings of women. In Sheffield, 35-year-old Terri Harris was killed together with three children, John Paul Bennett, Lacey Bennet and Connie Gent. In Greenwich, primary school teacher Sabina Nessa was only 28 years old.
Her Majesty’s inspectorate of police, Zoë Billingham, rightly describes this as an “epidemic” of male violence against women, and the extent of the impunity of men for this violence is shown by the killer of Sophie Moss saying that it was just “rough sex gone wrong” and literally getting away without a murder charge.
All credit to the Government for commissioning this report. Will they now implement its recommendations in full? We have a woman Homey Secretary, and I believe that women in leading positions have a special duty to deliver for other women. Although she will meet the inevitable institutional objections and traditional resistance to change, she will, if she does this, have 100% support from this side of the House and, indeed, 100% support from her own side. It is not often we can say this, but this is something that the whole House wants.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her questions, and I pay tribute to her for her long-standing record of action in this area. I am sure that she will continue to hold me to account at this Dispatch Box and in other forums.
Speaking on behalf of the Government and myself, our heart goes out to all those affected by these horrific crimes. Our thoughts are with the families and the victims. The right hon. and learned Lady will be aware, however, that we cannot comment on ongoing cases.
Addressing murder is a key priority for the police. They are, of course, operationally independent from the Government, and rightly so. Driving down the murder rate in this country is a key priority. The right hon. and learned Lady mentions the report’s findings. We are working carefully and very closely on them and are considering them in detail. That is why we have appointed the policing lead Maggie Blyth; we look forward to working with her and taking forward those recommendations and actions.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to her role at the Home Office, a great Department of State. She is going to be doing important work there, and I wish her well.
We can succeed in ensuring that we have no violence against women and girls only if we change attitudes, as referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), including the attitude that women “just ask for it”. One of the issues in the report is a lack of consistency across and between forces in their treatment of crimes of violence against women and girls. The College of Policing plays an essential role in developing and spreading best practice, so will my hon. Friend ensure that particular attention is paid to recommendations 4.3 and 4.4, to ensure that best practice is adopted by all forces up and down the country?
Rachel Maclean
It is a real privilege to be questioned by my right hon. Friend on this issue. She has been instrumental throughout the years in initiating the important work I am now talking about. She is absolutely right to highlight the fact that when women go to the authorities to seek help, they need to be listened to and they need to be supported adequately. That is a key part of the work we set out in the violence against women and girls strategy. We will be making sure that that takes place.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the new Minister to her place.
The report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services highlights the continued staggering failures by the Government to protect women and girls adequately. We should not make any bones about what it actually says. Since Sarah Everard was killed, a further 78 women have been killed by men, and I am sure that we would all wish to send our support to the family of Sabina Nessa this week.
The report tells the Government that there cannot be anything less than sweeping and fundamental changes across the board. There have been many reports, statistics and cases this year. After each one there has been an opportunity for concrete action, but each time we simply get a piecemeal response—a little review here, a pilot project there. Tackling misogyny and violence is on all of us, but primarily it is on the Minister. It is the Government’s job to keep people safe. The report is clear. In the words of Her Majesty’s inspectorate, these problems have arisen because of
“the continuing effects of austerity on policing and partner-agency budgets.”
The Labour party continues to call for a comprehensive violence against women and girls Bill. We also support all the recommendations in Zoë Billingham’s report. Will the Minister today commit to keeping to the very detailed action plan commanded by the report within the timeline it states? I will, of course, be checking. Will the Minister now take seriously our calls for the proper supervision and management of repeat offenders? Again, I quote from the report:
“there is no consistent and dedicated model in place for managing domestic abuse offenders”.
No model in place, Mr Speaker. I could actually scream. How can there be no model in place to deal with violent criminals? We have repeatedly asked for one. When can we expect it?
Will the Minister tell this House—I have asked this from this Dispatch Box before—when the Government will finally categorise violence against women and girls as a serious crime, just as they do with terrorism and serious youth violence? When I asked this question recently of the Minister for Crime and Policing, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who is in his place, he said that local areas can do it if they want. That is exactly the kind of half-hearted effort that leads to patchy approaches that this report decries. It is not an acceptable response. Will they finally act? They have a chance to do it in the House of Lords in these weeks around us.
The safety and security of women is not some side-line, add-on issue; it is essential to a functioning society. It can no longer be a weight borne by women everywhere. Every day wasted waiting for the Home Secretary to decide if she wants to undertake the recommendations is another rape, another murder and another beating.
Rachel Maclean
I am delighted to answer questions put to me by the hon. Lady and I look forward to many more opportunities to do so, but I must start by robustly rejecting her central accusation, which I think is that the Government have done nothing. May I remind her that the Government commissioned the report precisely because this is a priority for this Government? This Government have delivered a number of measures to keep women safer, whether they are legislative measures, funding to essential services to support women, toughening up laws or passing laws to keep more perpetrators behind bars.
Let me point to a couple of key parts of the strategy. We have appointed someone with a lifetime of experience to work with us; following the report published only last week, I am looking forward to working closely with Zoë Billingham. I will take forward what she comes out with very seriously to ensure that the police drive forward her recommendations.
Make no mistake: this issue is a central priority for me. I have been in my role for three days, but the hon. Lady will know that it is a priority for me and for the Home Office as a whole.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
There will not be a single woman in this House who has not been the victim of dehumanising behaviour from men. As my hon. Friend says, addressing that will require societal change, but we are increasingly seeing that women’s first exposure to that violent behaviour is in schools. What steps will she take to challenge the Department for Education to make sure that we have conversations about consent and tackling entitlement at the earliest possible time?
Rachel Maclean
I completely agree about the important issue of early intervention, working with families and young people and tackling the root cause of these horrific crimes. That is why, as part of the violence against women and girls action plan, we have commissioned a significant public communications campaign that will tackle many of the issues that my hon. Friend addresses, but it is also vital that I work with my colleagues in the DFE and that we ensure we are working in schools as well.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Select Committee on Home Affairs heard damning evidence last week from rape survivors about how they have been let down by the criminal justice system. The report is also damning about the scale of the problem and the scale of the change that is needed.
I welcome the Minister to her new post and look forward to working with her on the issue, but may I say to her that urgency is hugely important? We have heard very many words about very many reforms over a long period of time, but on rape prosecutions, things have actually gone backwards. I urge her to say that she will support all the recommendations and implement them, not just take them forward. If she cannot commit to implementing them this week, will she come back next week, commit to implementing them and make sure that they actually happen in practice and save women’s lives?
Rachel Maclean
I refer to my previous comments. It is right that we work with people who are independent and have authority over the police forces in this country. They are operationally independent from the Government; that is the system we have in this country, and it is right that we have that. It is right that I take evidence and work closely with those who have that expertise. I remind the right hon. Lady that we have already implemented a number of the recommendations in the report, as I set out earlier. My colleagues in the Home Office are doing wider work around rape and the end-to-end rape review, which is tackling some of the very important issues that she raises.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. Does she agree that one of the best things that we could do to protect women and girls from violence would be to reverse the catastrophic decision to close hundreds of police stations? If police stations are open, particularly in our towns and cities, the police patrol from them. They offer deterrence, reassurance and, in the worst cases, a place for women and girls—and men and boys—to run to.
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of active and visible policing. The Government are committed to recruiting 20,000 new police officers for exactly that purpose. It is right that we have our officers out on the streets, where they can fight the crime that is affecting our communities.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
On Friday evening, Sabina Nessa, a 28-year-old primary school teacher, was walking near her home in my constituency, in the Kidbrooke area, when she was attacked and murdered by a man who is yet to be identified. Our hearts go out to her family and friends.
Sabina’s murder highlights yet again the growing problem of violence against women and girls. The Victims’ Commissioner, Vera Baird, has described it as an epidemic and has endorsed the recommendation of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services that violence against women and girls be given the same priority as counter-terrorism. Will the Government accept that recommendation, agree that the time has come to prioritise tackling violence against women and girls, and give it the resources it demands?
Rachel Maclean
Our deepest sympathies are with the family and friends of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. It is precisely cases like those that have led us to prioritise violence against women and girls in such a vital way. That is why we have appointed a national policing lead so that we can put the issue at the heart of Government policy. That is the right way to tackle it.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place and thank her for her statement. Data sharing and collaboration between organisations in victims’ cases are obviously sensitive but crucial issues and are highlighted in the report. Will she outline the steps that the Government are taking to improve data transparency, to help to stop offenders from repeating their heinous crimes?
Rachel Maclean
We are looking into these matters, which are clearly a vital part of our response. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and discuss them in more detail.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has recently held that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010, yet women in public life are increasingly finding that we cannot debate or discuss our rights under the Act without fear of abuse, threats, intimidation and violence; I know that from my own experience, and I know that other Members of the House know it. To take just two other examples from public life, the celebrated writer J. K. Rowling and the celebrated feminist and campaigner against abuse against women, Julie Bindel, who was assaulted outside Edinburgh University, know that to be the case. My question for the new Minister, whom I welcome to her place, is this: what is this Government doing to make sure that women can debate or discuss their rights under the Equality Act without fear of abuse, without fear of threats, without fear of intimidation and without fear of violence?
Rachel Maclean
I am grateful for the opportunity to answer the hon. and learned Lady. I am acutely aware of the issues that she raises. It is frankly a disgrace that women cannot go about their important work and express their opinions freely without the kind of harassment and intimidation that she refers to. This is a very wide societal issue. I would like to see the Labour party taking more active steps to protect its own members so that they can go to conference without fear of being attacked or abused, but these are matters for wider Government; I am very happy to meet the hon. and learned Lady and discuss them in more detail in due course.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Two years ago, when my constituent lived in a flat in London, she had to barricade herself in, while for two hours, on eight occasions, her neighbour, who had known mental health issues, tried to get in. When she called the police and they turned up, she begged them to look at the CCTV. They refused and left her and the individual still in those flats. When she—not the police, but she herself—looked at the CCTV evidence seven days later, the man was found to have been naked and holding an implement. Only then did the police take the matter seriously.
Will the Minister meet me and my constituent to discuss these issues? Does she agree that if I write to the Met commissioner, I would be a lot more assured that she was taking it seriously if she wrote back herself rather than palming it on to the local force who were responsible for the failure in the first place?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important constituency case. It is shocking to hear the experiences of his constituent. I am very happy to meet him and I fully agree that this is exactly why we have published the strategy: to make sure that all police forces across the country are responding appropriately to crimes in these horrific circumstances.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Sabina Nessa, a young teacher in Catford, had so much left to give our community. She was described by the headteacher as
“kind, caring and absolutely dedicated to her pupils.”
Her life was brutally taken, like those of so many before her, through misogynistic violence. How many women’s lives must be stolen before the Government take serious action?
Rachel Maclean
Every women who loses their life is one woman too many. We are devastated to hear of the loss of the life of Sabina Nessa, and our hearts go out to the family, as I said, but the hon. Lady will have heard my earlier comments about the priority that we have put on this work. The Government are passing legislation, setting out actions and tackling these horrific crimes, and we are determined to see a reduction in them.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place.
In the year to June 2020, it was estimated that 70% of domestic abuse cases were closed prematurely by Greater Manchester police. During the same year, 80,000 crimes were not recorded at all. The picture nationally is even worse: three out of four domestic abuse cases end without charge. A crisis is happening, certainly in my local policing area. Will my hon. Friend agree to meet me and the chief constable of Greater Manchester to ensure that the failures that have happened there over many years can be put right at the earliest opportunity?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It is at the heart of our strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, ensuring that cases are not closed and women get the justice to which they are entitled, and that perpetrators receive the sentences and punishment that they should receive. I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Violence against women and girls needs to be treated in much the same way as terrorism and county lines. It is about resources. It cannot be left to local forces and police and crime commissioners. What conversations is the Minister having, if this is a priority, with police and crime commissioners to ensure that they deliver on the agenda?
Rachel Maclean
The role of police and crime commissioners will be vital in this regard. Because I have been in my present role for only two days, I have had no conversations with them yet other than in my capacity as a local MP, but I am acutely aware of the role that they play in commissioning those vital local services, and I look forward to having many conversations about that in the future.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her new job. She is right—operational policing has to be left to commanders and suchlike—but she can set the policy. Can we make it clear that there will be zero tolerance of any violence against women and girls, and that women who are at risk will be taken to a place of safety and not returned against their will to a place where a perpetrator could continue to subject the victim to violence?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend has referred to domestic abuse. We have pulled out the whole issue of domestic abuse, because it warrants a separate response. That is why the former Prime Minister and Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), initiated the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which has rightly strengthened protections for domestic abuse victims across the board.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I welcome the Minister to her new responsibilities.
This new report recognises that fundamental system change is needed in the way in which police respond to violence against women and girls, and highlights positive examples in our devolved policy, such as the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015. The commission led by the former Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas recommended that policing and crime reduction policy should be determined in Wales so that it is properly aligned with and integrated in our health, education and social policy. Good work is happening in Wales now; imagine how much more we could do if we had the necessary powers and funding. Does the Minister agree that in order to take a truly radical approach to tackling gender-based violence, we should follow Lord Thomas’s recommendation and devolve powers over policing in Wales to Wales?
Rachel Maclean
It is a pleasure to respond to the right hon. Lady, but I am sure she will not expect me to make such commitments at the Dispatch Box. Of course we work closely with the devolved Administrations—the Minister for Crime and Policing, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), will have had many such conversations—but we need to work collegiately across our entire United Kingdom.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I hope that Members in all parts of the House can agree that every rape survivor is worthy of compassion, support and justice. Last week I highlighted the case of a constituent who had been raped but was not entitled to any criminal injury compensation because of a past conviction related to a previous addiction. I have written to the Department, and I hope that the promise of a meeting is fulfilled and we are able to sit down and discuss this. However, it seems wrong to me—and I hope the Minister agrees—that one rape victim should be considered somehow less worthy than another.
Rachel Maclean
I am obviously sorry to hear of the experiences of the hon. Lady’s constituent. The Government are doing a great deal of work in examining the treatment of rape victims, but the hon. Lady has raised a specific case, and of course I should be happy to meet her and discuss it with her.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I, too, welcome the Minister to her place. I have listened carefully to these exchanges, and I understand that she sincerely wants to tackle the issues, but I think that what we on these Benches are asking is for the piecemeal approach to end and for the Government to deal with the root causes of the problem. Will they finally tackle the root causes of violence against women and girls, and legislate to make misogyny a hate crime?
Rachel Maclean
If the hon. Lady is serious about tackling the root causes, she will understand that we need a whole-system approach—a societal approach—and it is impossible to do justice to that in these exchanges. The violence against women and girls strategy sets it out in considerable detail, and the inspectorate report pulls out some key themes. We are looking across the piece at all the actions that we need to take. We are taking this seriously: that is why we have passed the Domestic Abuse Act, created the VAWG strategy, and appointed the national policing lead. However, there is a great deal of work still to be done, and I am determined to do it.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
We had another horrific incident in the Rhondda yesterday, and the police are still investigating. However, I want to ask about the injuries that are done to women. Many such injuries show bruises, and there is something to be seen by the naked eye, but many others are injuries to the brain, and are often not recorded by the police. No evidence is taken about them, and there is no screening.
First, may I urge the Government to please ensure that every woman who makes complaints about domestic violence is screened for brain injury? Just two simple questions—that is all they have to ask, so that we can get the right help to people who have had such injuries. Secondly, will the Government please support my private Member’s Bill on acquired brain injury, which will be debated later this year? It is very simple: it does exactly what Dame Cheryl did for autism. It simply requires the Government to have a cross-party strategy. Sixty-seven per cent of women in prison have had a brain injury. We are not going to tackle this unless the Government as a whole take a position on it.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his long-standing advocacy of this vital issue. He is right to say that many of the injuries done to women are hidden—and we know that this is a hidden offence, which often takes place behind closed doors. I shall be happy to meet him and discuss further what I can do in my capacity, and he is right to highlight the fact that this is a cross-Government approach.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to her new role. May I, in her early days in that role, ask her to look specifically at low-level sexual offending against women? As we know, offences such as indecent exposure often go unreported, or, if they are reported, are not taken seriously by the police. We also know that that behaviour often escalates to far more serious sexual offending and to murders, as happened in the case of Libby Squire in Hull and Sarah Everard in London.
Rachel Maclean
The right hon. Lady makes a valid point, and this is an area that the Home Office is determined to look at in more detail. As she will appreciate, there are difficulties in gathering evidence, which is why we have focused on the communications strategy, helping women to have the confidence to come forward to report offences—and, most important, to know when they do come forward that they will be believed and action will be taken. That is a central part of our action plan.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As the Minister will know, the Department for Transport’s consultation on personal safety on the streets of England closed on 15 September. I appreciate the fact that when she was my opposite number in that Department she met me to talk through the issues, but, as she will also know, the Department for Transport is not the quickest Department when it comes to acting on responses to consultation, and I could reel off a whole list of issues that I am waiting to see turned into concrete action. Could she take it upon herself to talk to her colleagues in that Department, and ensure that there is speedy action on those responses?
Rachel Maclean
It is a pleasure to see the hon. Lady in a different capacity. That was a strategy that I initiated during my time as a Minister in that Department, and she will see that my successor in the role, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), is sitting here on the Front Bench listening carefully to her comments. I am sure that my hon. Friend would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady. This is an important issue for the Department for Transport, and I am sure that the Department will respond in its usual speedy way to this consultation and all the others.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister is obviously right to say that every woman murdered is an appalling tragedy, but it is particularly agonising when women are murdered when there were opportunities to protect them but they had not been taken. In my constituency, 23-year-old Gracie Spinks was murdered by a man who had been stalking her for months. She had reported this to the police. What has been described as a murder kit was found at the stables where she kept her horses, and it was handed into the police, but no action was taken. Ultimately, she was murdered at that very spot on 18 June. There is a real need for urgency and for police forces to be consistent in their approach. I welcome the fact that the Government have commissioned this report, but what can the Minister point to that the Government are physically doing to ensure that consistency across police forces prevents families like that of Gracie Spinks from having to undergo similar appalling grief?
Rachel Maclean
I am obviously sorry to hear about the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, which is clearly devastating. I can specifically point to the laws that we have already passed to tackle stalking, which are much tougher than the previous regime and include stalking protection orders. These are a vital part of our response. In terms of consistency, which he and many other Members have raised, it is important to stress again that this is why we have appointed a national policing lead, Maggie Blyth, to drive this consistency. We know that there are forces that are doing an excellent job in responding to some of these horrific crimes, but some are not. That is why we need to work across the whole of the policing community.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
In the wake of so many women across the UK losing their lives at the hands of male perpetrators, I welcome the publication of the report. It recommends that
“there should be a radical refocus and shift in the priority given to VAWG offences by the police and all partners, including wrap-around, tailored support for victims”.
However, the Government have still failed to confirm the details of the long-awaited perpetrator strategy, so I ask the Minister, whom I welcome to her place, when exactly this strategy, which is so crucial to tackling violence against women and girls, will be published.
Rachel Maclean
I would like to be able to write to the hon. Lady about this specific strategy, as these are my first couple of days in this role. She is clearly right to highlight the importance of dealing with perpetrators and bringing them to justice, which is why we have introduced a number of measures across the piece in the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to her new post. On this issue, there has to be a culture change in society as well as in the police and the criminal justice system, because the common thread running through many of these crimes is a power differential between women and men. Too many men still feel entitled to do or say whatever they wish to women, to disrespect women and to harm them. What more is the Minister doing to tackle head-on the culture that is prevalent in too many men out there? What is she doing to change that culture?
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this culture. He is also right to say that it is unacceptable. This type of violence against women and girls has no place in our society. Publishing the strategy is simply the first step. There are a number of actions that many actors in the system have to take. They include, but are not limited to, our significant public communication campaign, as well as working with our colleagues in education and schools, driving through our priorities and making it crystal clear that this culture has no place in our society and that we must tackle it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place and wish her well in her new ministerial role. Bearing in mind the shocking increase in domestic abuse throughout lockdown, has any consideration been given to allocating additional funding to women’s aid charities to help them to make contact with their vulnerable clients and to offer them the help that they very much need?
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 that we have passed, and we will be publishing our domestic abuse strategy setting out more detail of how we will work across the whole system to ensure that those places of safety are rightly available. Any conversations around funding are a matter for our colleagues in the Treasury, but he should be in no doubt that we are strongly advocating to see adequate funding going into those vital services.
Injunction to Protect the M25
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about protests.
There is widespread anger throughout the country about the disruption, danger and misery that so-called climate protesters have caused with their selfish actions. On 13, 15, and 17 September, a group called Insulate Britain staged co-ordinated sit-down protests on the M25, leading to major traffic delays. They also targeted the wider road network—namely, the M1, M3 and M11. Dealing with that involved Surrey police, Essex police, Thames Valley police, Hertfordshire constabulary, Kent police, and the Metropolitan police as the lead force. A total of 241 arrests were made across those three days.
On Monday, those groups attempted to block the carriageway at junction 1A of the M25 in Kent, the M25 in Hertfordshire and junction 4 of the A1. Hertfordshire constabulary was present at both scenes and made 29 arrests. Yesterday, protesters blocked both M25 carriageways between junction 9 and junction 10. Surrey police arrived on the scene within three minutes and officers cleared the carriageway quickly. It is clear that police response times have improved significantly following the first two days of protests. The affected forces have dedicated significant resources to spotting protesters and removing them quickly.
Protest is a right, but it must be balanced against the rights of others to go about their daily lives. The right to protest is not unqualified and does not include a right to endanger others, to intimidate people or to break the law. The events of recent days have crossed this line. As anyone should know, sitting in the road is extremely dangerous, both to themselves and to others. Delays caused by protests between 13 and 17 September have cost drivers in excess of £500,000. This figure does not take into account the knock-on effect for the local road network, for manufacturing businesses or for those who missed their connections at ports. Previous actions of Extinction Rebellion, of which I understand Insulate Britain is an offshoot, have cost the taxpayer £50 million and diverted valuable police resources. We have all heard the heart-breaking stories about people not getting the medical treatment they needed, and seen people standing by their cars crying in frustration at this appallingly stupid and selfish behaviour. We have all had enough.
The Government have been working hard to address these concerns. The Home Secretary and I are in constant contact with the police, and we have been crystal clear in our support for their robust and swift enforcement of the law. There is absolutely no excuse for this selfish and disruptive behaviour. The irony is that it actually undermines the cause of climate change, as well as creating more traffic and pollution. These protesters live in a free country where they can lobby politicians, stand for election and boot us out of office if they do not like what we do. There is now widespread agreement in this House and across the political spectrum that climate change demands major action. In November, the UK will host a huge international conference where we will discuss and debate these very issues. But we do not change policies or make law in this country through mob rule or being held to ransom, and these people should not suppose for one moment that the public are with them.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is under consideration in the other place, contains proportionate measures better to enable the police to deal with disruptive protests. By putting public nuisance on to a statutory footing, as recommended by the independent Law Commission, we will increase the powers available to the police for dealing with this sort of protest. However, the disruption to our transport network is now so harmful and dangerous that we need to take swift action. The Home Office and the Department for Transport have been working closely with National Highways to keep the situation under review and explore options for enabling the police to take a more robust approach.
With our full support, National Highways has now won an interim injunction to prevent protesters from occupying the M25. As colleagues will know, an injunction is a judicial order, made in this case by the High Court, that can require someone either to do something or to refrain from doing something. This injunction prohibits people from blocking, endangering, slowing down, obstructing or otherwise preventing the free flow of traffic on the M25. If a person breaches the injunction, or if they encourage or help others to do so, they will be held in contempt of court and may be imprisoned or fined. The fine is unlimited. This should act as a major deterrent, and it recognises that this law breaking is serious, with consequences that match the offending.
The police should be fighting crime in our neighbourhoods, not chasing activists across busy motorways. That is why we have taken this action now, and we are working with National Highways on obtaining a full injunction later this week.
This is a free country but that freedom, particularly to assemble, to speak out and to protest, does not come without responsibilities to respect the rights of others and the democratic process. The British people expect us to make decisions in a civilised, democratic manner, and they expect that those who seek to bully or blackmail are sent packing, so it is with some pleasure that I commend this statement to the House.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for giving me advance sight of it.
Tackling climate change is the single greatest challenge of our generation, and I trust the Minister agrees with me that it must be at the heart of everything we do. We are at a critical moment. In less than 100 days, COP26 will be over and our chance to keep the planet’s warming below 1.5° will have been either grasped or abandoned.
Climate protests range from blocking roads to shutting down transport networks in London, with protesters gluing themselves to cars and roads. These are often very dangerous tactics that require a very particular police response. The police have been in an incredibly difficult position, and they have at times faced criticism on various fronts. Yesterday, as the Minister said, we saw Surrey police arrive on the scene just minutes after the first call, clearing both carriageways incredibly swiftly.
Labour is clear that the right to protest is a fundamental freedom and a hard-won democratic tradition of which we are deeply proud. The right to protest is precious, but we must always be clear that protests have to be lawful. Where they are unlawful, we back the police on the frontline to make the best operational judgment on how to deal with the issues as they arise on the ground. Our police are not helped by armchair critics of their tactics. We know that the police are having to take dynamic decisions in often dangerous circumstances, and I pay tribute to them in the House today.
Anyone who has seen the footage from over the weekend of officers having to follow protesters who were rushing on to the motorway in an attempt to keep both them and drivers safe will recognise the bravery required. There is clearly an issue when people, who can be held for only 24 hours, then return to our motorways, so action is required to assist our police in that respect.
This injunction has now been granted to National Highways by an independent judge, and people are committing a contempt of court and face possible imprisonment if they breach it. I urge people not to breach the injunction and instead to make their views known lawfully in all the ways outlined by the Minister. That said, I look to him to tell us what resources will be made available to support the police to make additional arrests, if required.
I hope we can agree that insulation must be a focus of this Government’s agenda as we move towards this existential crisis. Although we agree on the need to ensure protesters, motorists and police officers are safe, the Government must do all they can to drive climate change up the agenda, and on that we will hold them to account.
Kit Malthouse
I thank the hon. Lady for her unequivocal support for the police, which we do not always hear in this House. I am grateful to her for that. It is undoubtedly the case that the police forces affected have had to move extremely quickly to deal with these guerrilla tactics, and we are grateful to all the police officers, as always, for often putting themselves in harm’s way.
I am also pleased to hear the hon. Lady recognise that the right to protest is not an unqualified right. We all treasure it, and we all know that great advances have been made in our society because of it, but it has to be done within a framework of respecting the rights of others, and I hope we are encapsulating a better balance in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that is currently in the other place. I hope she will review her party’s opposition to the Bill and possibly support it when it returns to this Chamber.
Finally, I hope the hon. Lady shares my extreme frustration at the damage such protests do to the cause of fighting climate change. For my own part, I have been an advocate of the hydrogen economy for well over 20 years. I chaired Hydrogen London for eight years and I fought tooth and nail to equip London with the means to transition from a combustion economy to one driven by electrochemistry. For those of us who have been at that coalface for many years, it is extremely disheartening to see people screaming in frustration and filled with negativity about the notion of climate change being a battle that we still have to win, but it also holds out an exciting future for our country.
I am pleased that we have consensus on both sides of the House and, as we deal with these protests, I hope that we can count on that consensus in the future.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The real tragedy of these morons on the motorway is that they set back the cause of advancing decarbonisation in the transport system and they put lives at risk. I welcome the Minister’s robust statement. In the event that these injunctions are not successful, will he consider legislation that perhaps links the fines to the economic damage that is caused? Will more action be taken by this House, if needed?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is right to point to the damage that these protesters are doing, not least because we are learning that many of the leading characters in these protests operate on a “Do as I say, not as I do” basis. Strangely, we are all in the debt of Richard Madeley, who spoke for Britain when he interviewed some of these activists over the past few days.
On legislation, I know that my hon. Friend will be an enthusiastic supporter of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill when it returns to the House, not least because it puts public nuisance on a statutory footing. The maximum penalty that can be handed out by the courts for offences that meet the threshold will be 10 years, which will hopefully close this loophole. In the meantime, let us hope the injunction works.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
There is an important right to peaceful protest in this country, but running on to motorways is just dangerous. It puts lives at risk, so the police and the courts are right to take action to keep people safe. Given the importance of COP26 and action against climate change, and given the strong feelings across the country, what action is being taken to make sure that there can be legitimate, safe and peaceful protests or demonstrations around COP26 so that lives are not put at risk and we do not see such dangerous behaviour?
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee for her unequivocal support for the police and the action that has been taken. She is right that we need to do significant work to enable those who wish to make their voice heard during COP26. As she knows, there will be a significant public order operation around that event, part of which will be liaison with the protest organisers to ensure that their protest takes place safely. We have protests across the United Kingdom every single day, and the vast majority do take place safely. That requires a sense of responsibility from the protesters, recognising that the rest of us have a right to go about our lives unmolested by them while they raise the issues that they seek to highlight. I am glad that she mentioned COP26, at which we will bring the world to this nation and exhibit our ambition for the future, as well as urging others to do more.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I congratulate the Government and National Highways on taking this action. It is vital that we nip this in the bud. These people are dangerous, and the consequences are not necessarily for those who can see them. Drivers who are miles back when the traffic comes to an instant halt could well face death or injury. Keep up the good work, crack down on this and let people demonstrate safely, but not on our roads.
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend speaks with his usual wisdom on this issue. The knock-on consequences of such traffic obstruction are economic but also emotional. We have seen heartrending stories of people who have been unable to attend to sick or elderly relatives in hospital or who have been prevented from, who knows, getting to job interviews that might have clinched a bright future. All sorts of impacts are brought to bear by this kind of selfish protest. At the same time, the great sadness is that it diminishes, not enhances, enthusiasm for the cause that these protesters seemingly want to promote but are, by their actions, damaging.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
First, let me express my support for every police officer who helps to keep us safe and keep public order—their safety is essential. However, I also understand the side of the protesters, who really feel that climate change is a threat to their future. We must make sure that the fundamental right to protest and of assembly is protected. I worry that injunctions such as this will serve to pit the police against protesters. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that this injunction does not undermine the principle of policing by consent?
Kit Malthouse
I had hoped that we would reach a consensus across the House. I know that the possibly relatively small number of Liberal Democrat supporters who were sitting in those traffic jams will have been disappointed by the hon. Lady’s question. This injunction was granted by an independent judiciary; it was a case put before them by National Highways that these protesters were causing significant danger, to not only themselves, but other motorists. On that basis, the interim injunction was granted. We will be seeking a final injunction later this week, when the wider case will be heard. That is the way we do things in this country—by the rule of law and democratic process. We do not do this by being bullied, held to ransom and blackmailed, and we certainly do not do it by putting innocent men and women who are just on their way to work, going about their business, to enormous inconvenience, misery and often, sadly, injury.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I commend the Minister for his statement and warmly applaud the action he is taking against these eco-maniacs. There is no greater supporter of the police than I, but I have been disturbed at how long it has taken them to remove some of these protesters, especially in the early protests. I thought it was already an offence to block the Queen’s highway, and I would not want it to be put about that these protesters can be moved only if an injunction is in place, not least because this injunction covers just the M25—just the National Highways network around London—and it does not cover local roads in Northamptonshire, for example. So may we have an assurance from the Policing Minister that if these eco-maniacs seek to block more local roads, which in many cases can be just as busy as the M25, the police will take urgent and robust action to remove them from the highway?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is right to say that this type of protest has caused significant concern across the country for many people who rely on the roads for their livelihoods and to get around. As I say, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will strengthen police powers to deal with this issue. There is an offence of blocking the highway at the moment, which the police are using to remove those protesters faster and faster. I am very grateful to those forces that have upped their game over the past few days, to the extent that Surrey police arrived within three minutes of the most recent blockage. Unfortunately, however, the penalty that attaches to that offence is quite weak—it is a level 3 fine, which is up to £1,000. The one thing we know about these groups is that they are well-financed, and this penalty is not proving to be enough of a deterrent. We hope that the injunction, the breach of which carries an unlimited fine and possibly up to two years in prison, will give us the deterrent we need while we wait for that legislation to appear.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I concur with the view that this behaviour is grossly dangerous and irresponsible, and I hope that these people will come to their senses. I understand the claim is that the purpose is to demonstrate their support for home insulation programmes. May I suggest to the Minister that he considers ensuring that those who are successfully prosecuted receive a sentence whereby they are put to work helping to insulate the homes of those less fortunate than themselves?
Kit Malthouse
What a splendid idea, not least as we learnt from the television this morning that one of the leading organisers of this group has yet to insulate his own home, despite urging the rest of us to do so. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government are investing significant amounts of money—more than £1 billion this year alone—on encouraging people to take green measures in their own homes, to help us with the fight against climate change. As for putting some of those individuals towards that effort, I am more than happy for them to come to have a look at the insulation in my roof, which could always do with some improvement—I think that is a jolly good idea.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
My constituents have had their lives hugely disrupted over the past week by the actions of these now so-called “morons on the motorway”. They are doing more harm than good by creating congestion, impacting air quality and driving up pollution in an area that already has poor air quality. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to meet our net zero commitments, we need to win the hearts and minds of the whole country to make the changes that are needed? Actions such as this are counterproductive and have seen the potential to divide us on this issue of climate change, rather than unite us, which is what we need.
Kit Malthouse
I could not have put it better myself; my hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. I know from his own history that one of the key things we have to do is engender in the British people the same enthusiasm for science and technology as he has shown in his parliamentary career, because that is the key way in which we will solve this challenge of climate change. This kind of blunt instrument—selfish behaviour—sets that cause back by years.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the Government on finally taking action against these hypocritical highway hoodlums, who have caused misery to many people across London and the greater area. Does the Minister share my concern that the police seemed in some cases to collaborate with them? I am the last person to talk about protest, because I come from a party of protest and many a time have been engaged in protest. I have never had a police officer come to ask me whether I am comfortable or what he could do to help me to stay in the place where I am. Usually, it is a case of, “You are breaking the law, get out of the road.” As it is likely that these protesters will move to somewhere else where there is not an injunction, what discussions is the Minister having with the police to make sure that the boys in blue do not act on the side of the protesters in green?
Kit Malthouse
Happily, it is boys and, increasingly, girls in blue that we are seeing on the frontline. The alliteration is flying, is it not, Madam Deputy Speaker? I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support in what we are doing. I would caution him in drawing any lessons from specific instances that have been filmed of police officers trying to do their best to handle these protests. The role of the police in this situation, as in all protest situations, is fundamentally to enable protest within the law. Although in any one day the police will do thousands of things that go well and something that then appears on social media may indicate otherwise, we need to be careful about drawing wider lessons of police treatment of people from that. We are in constant contact with the chief constables concerned and not least with the Metropolitan police, who are co-ordinating this action. If we need to expand our ability to deal with it, we will do so.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Along with millions of people up and down the country, I welcome the move taken by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Transport Secretary; it is good to see common sense prevail. Stoke-on-Trent has welcomed nearly £1 million of Government funding earlier this year as part of the green homes grant scheme, which is being distributed to the city’s most vulnerable. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the great work that Stoke-on-Trent City Council is doing to insulate homes? Does he agree that rather than hindering people who are going about their lives, the Insulate Britain protesters should be welcoming the important work being done by this Government and councils to insulate homes and cut carbon emissions?
Kit Malthouse
Stoke-on-Trent is soon to renamed part of the green country for the work it is doing. This shows the great tragedy of these protests; we are actually making enormous strides in our ambition to reach net zero, investing masses of public money in encouraging people to take up electric vehicles, insulate their homes and look at green technologies in the way they run their lives, and that is often being led by local government. So I am very pleased to offer my support to my hon. Friend and point the British public towards this great work that is being done, recognising that this is a positive step forward for us, rather than a stick to beat people with, which is what these protesters seem to be doing.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
It was recently a pleasure to meet constituents as part of the Great Big Green Week, when we had a fruitful discussion about the challenges of climate change. I welcome the injunction against irresponsible protest. Will my right hon. Friend consider, if necessary, extending or applying to extend the injunction to other parts of the highways network, such as the M23, which serves my constituency and many important businesses, not least Gatwick airport?
Kit Malthouse
Of course we will, if required. Let us hope that the deterrent effect is enough, but if the protest extends to other parts of the motorway network, we will have to consider our judicial options while we wait for the legislation, currently in the other place, to emerge hopefully unamended so that we can put the public nuisance offence on the statute book.
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend is engaging with constituents. He might be interested to know that on Friday, I had a meeting with representatives of CAFOD in my constituency, who urged me to follow the words of His Holiness and pursue our climate change ambitions. Out of that meeting came a pledge from me to hold a green summit in my constituency in the next few months, where we will bring people together to discuss what more we can do in beautiful North West Hampshire to make our contribution.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
This injunction is welcome news. Does the Minister agree that the police should now adopt a zero-tolerance approach and that, as soon as one of these morons sets foot on the motorway, they should be carted off in an electric police van and locked up in a fully insulated cell?
Kit Malthouse
In his usual forthright and direct manner, my hon. Friend puts his finger on the button. We are now seeing extremely swift action—police are arriving on the scene within minutes. He will understand that it is tough for them to patrol the entire motorway network and be there as fast as they can, but Surrey police were there in three minutes and in Kent, protesters were intercepted before they even got on the carriageway. But where do we want our police officers? We want them in our neighbourhoods, on our streets, fighting crime. We do not want them patrolling the motorway network, looking for those people. Hopefully, the injunction will mean that they can go back to doing the job we expect of them.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I commend the Minister for his action. It is about time those people learnt that they cannot make unpeaceful protests, which have an impact on the lives of so many people going about their daily work. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) who asked what would happen if they set foot on his part of the M23. May I ask the Minister to look at the M1 and the A1, which take people north and are crucial to the lifeblood of the country? If we do not keep the traffic moving, we will affect the economy. I commend my right hon. Friend for what he has done, but ask him please not to hesitate to do more if necessary.
Kit Malthouse
We are very alive to the possibility of other motorways being affected. If they are, of course we will take the action that is required. My hon. Friend highlights an important point: we as democratic representatives should be the repository of those kind of views and I am not aware personally—I will check in my office—that I have been approached by this group seeking any change or acceleration in Government policy and I do not know whether anyone else in the House has. That is the way we do things in this country and hopefully that is the way we will go back to.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
We have heard countless examples of people being stopped going to GPs or hospitals because of those protesters. We all know that the NHS is under great strain, with long waiting lists post covid. What steps can the Government take to try to get financial recompense for the NHS from the protesters so that the taxpayer is not subsidising those eco-extremists?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend expresses pithily the frustration and the cost of the protests to wider society. If only we had some way to recover that cost from those individuals. Sadly, that is unlikely under current legislation, although it is not beyond the realms of possibility that someone who was caught up in the protests and missed some commercial opportunity might wish to consult their lawyers and see whether there was some method of seeking compensation.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I welcome the steps that my right hon. Friend and the Government have taken to address this very serious issue. It is not protest, but deliberate acts by people going on to the public highway and endangering people’s lives. That is completely different from peaceful protest, which we all welcome. We are all committed to supporting the green agenda—that is separate from people putting others’ lives at risk. In line with other questions to my right hon. Friend, I ask whether he will take every step necessary if those people turn up on the M6, M5 or wherever else and urge the police to take every action necessary to remove them immediately from the public highway, otherwise somebody will get killed.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. As an esteemed officer of the court, he will know that, to get an injunction, we have made a case exactly as he says. It is not about protest, but about safety on the highway—something that the Government have to put first. If it works, fine, but if things get worse, we will obviously have to consider what more action we must take.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
Like my right hon. Friend, I watched “Good Morning Britain” this morning with disbelief, seeing an activist who claimed to speak for Insulate Britain and then admitted he had not insulated his own home, despite pushing others to do that. That is a level of foolishness I have not seen on the show since its former presenter left. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the highly disruptive and repeat protests are exactly the kind of measures that our Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill seeks to address and that it means that we will not have to seek such injunctions in future?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Following requests from the police and a report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue about the balance we need to strike between the rights of protesters and those of the rest of us to go about our lives, the relatively mild measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will give the police much better powers to manage those sorts of protest. At the same time, it means that the vast majority of protests, which are lawful and often important, can take place in an environment in which everybody is safe and the protesters’ voice can be heard. I hope that, when the Bill returns from the other place, it will receive unequivocal support from across the House. Beyond the measures on protest, it contains important provisions to deal with violent crime and to support the most vulnerable in our society.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for his statement.
Hen Caging (Prohibition)
Wednesday 22nd September 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Hen Caging (Prohibition) Bill 2021-22 View all Hen Caging (Prohibition) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the caging of commercially reared, egg-laying hens and pullets; and for connected purposes.
The people of Britain are some of the most caring and compassionate people in the world. We are a nation of people who care about justice, about each other and, of course, about animals. As the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs eloquently put it in his Department’s “Action Plan for Animal Welfare”:
“We are a nation of animal lovers.”
Therefore, we must ensure that we treat animals with compassion. The Bill will help do that by liberating millions of hens from inhumane cages.
The UK banned the use of battery cages for hens in 2012, but the ban did not extend to so-called enriched cages. Those cages are larger than conventional battery cages but still do not allow adequate space for the hens’ natural behaviours. When these behaviours cannot be performed, or are severely restricted, it can lead to frustration that is extremely detrimental to their wellbeing. That is why enriched cages have been condemned by animal welfare bodies. For example, the RSPCA released a statement with several organisations that stated:
“It is clear that such modified cages fail to properly meet the hens’ physical or behavioural needs. They…severely restrict many important physical activities, including running, flying, and wing-flapping; and do not permit unrestrained perching and dustbathing. The severe restriction of the hens’ ability to exercise is likely to lead to frustration, bone weakness and osteoporosis—clear indicators of poor welfare.”
Studies show that hens have a high level of intelligence, social and verbal complexity. They have individual personalities and have been shown to experience empathy when hearing the calls of their chicks. Despite this complexity and evident sentience, countless hens continue to languish in cramped cages that make it near impossible for them to express their natural behaviours and that cause extreme suffering.
One such hen, Beatrice, was just a few days old when she was put into a cage. With every day she spent there, she became more and more frail. She lost most of her feathers and became underweight, and her bones grew brittle. For two years she woke up to the same noisy, crowded misery. Luckily, Beatrice was rescued by a kind individual, but millions of hens around the world remain in cages that severely impact their welfare. Given my first name, I had considered subtitling my Bill “Hen’s Bill”, but I think it should be “Beatrice’s Bill”—Beatrice should get the credit.
Countries such as Austria, Switzerland and Germany have banned cages for hens. On 8 June 2021, Nevada became the ninth US state to ban the use of cages for laying hens, and just two weeks ago the EU committed to phasing out cages for animals by 2027. The Bill is therefore key to the UK’s claiming its place at the forefront of animal welfare standards and ending the unnecessary suffering of millions of hens like Beatrice.
The Bill has enormous public support. According to a report published in 2020 by the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, 76% of consumers want the banning of cages to be a priority. Also last year, Compassion in World Farming published a poll, carried out by YouGov, that found that 88% of the British public believe that the use of cages in farming is cruel to animals. A petition on the Compassion in World Farming website that calls for cages to be banned in the UK currently has around 600,000 signatures.
In addition to the Bill having public support, most major retailers and egg producers are also in favour of going cage-free. All leading supermarkets—including Tesco, Asda, Aldi, Co-op and Lidl—are committed to selling only cage-free shell eggs by 2025. That applies not only to their own-brand shell eggs but to all shell eggs sold in stores. Marks & Spencer, Waitrose and Sainsbury’s are already 100% free-range for shell eggs.
Many major companies in the restaurant, manufacturing and catering sectors also have public commitments to transition to 100% cage-free egg use by 2025. Several leading restaurant chains—including PizzaExpress, Nando’s and Pret a Manger—are already sourcing only cage-free eggs, and more than three quarters of the sector is now committed to doing so. All those commitments apply to both shell and ingredient eggs.
Egg packers are also overwhelmingly moving towards a cage-free future. According to research by the Humane League UK, 71% of egg packers are either cage-free already, have publicly committed to being cage-free by 2025, or have publicly stated their intention to become a cage-free operation.
Unfortunately, despite the industry support, 38% of eggs in the UK still come from cages. That equates to approximately 16 million laying hens a year. The Humane League UK estimates that, even with corporate cage-free commitments, up to 8 million laying hens annually will remain in cages throughout the country, and it anticipates that cage eggs will still be sold in a number of sectors in which either it is unclear where ingredients are coming from, or organisations have not signed up to cage-free commitments, as is the case with many major pet-food companies, wholesalers and single-location restaurants. Without this Bill, therefore, hens will continue to suffer on an enormous scale.
Several major companies, including Nestlé—which is headquartered in my constituency—Greggs and Premier Foods are now calling for the backing of legislation to ensure that no eggs come from caged hens. For example, Nestlé stated:
“Farm animals deserve decent welfare standards. Nestlé supports a phasing out of caged systems for all egg laying hens, building on industry efforts to date. We’re proud to source 100% cage free eggs for all our food products in the UK.”
Similarly, the president of Kraft Heinz Northern Europe, said:
“We are proud to have committed to ending the use of cages for laying hens in our supply chain. It’s now time for policy makers to follow suit so that all laying hens are spared this suffering.”
Building on that message, the Sustainable Restaurant Association stated that it
“recognises the progress that the industry, including many of the 12,000 restaurant sites that we work with, have made in moving away from sourcing caged-eggs, but the reality is that this cruel method of production will only cease when the government enacts legislation.”
Moving towards a cage-free future for hens is a goal that has widespread parliamentary support throughout this House. Combined with the Government’s stated commitment to animal welfare and to review the policy on cages, that represents near-total public, private and parliamentary support.
Of course, there will be some up-front costs associated with a move away from cages and towards systems that better safeguard animal welfare standards. In the beginning, farmers will need the support of the Government to transition, which is why I am proud that the 2019 Conservative party manifesto explicitly stated our commitment to support farmers to work in a way that safeguards
“high standards of animal welfare.”
In March last year, the Government elaborated on that by saying that
“we are developing publicly funded schemes for English farmers to provide public goods—including animal welfare enhancements”. —[Official Report, 16 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 252WH.]
To conclude, I congratulate the Government on the many steps they are taking to promote animal welfare. I am proud that my party is leading the way on a range of new laws, including the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill and the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Such laws will introduce profound changes that will positively affect the lives of countless vulnerable animals. The purpose of my Bill is to continue that great work through a ban on cages for hens in the UK.
My Bill will end the needless suffering of millions of caged hens like Beatrice in the UK. It is economically viable and will bring our laws into line with the strength of public feeling about this issue. It will also prevent companies from being undercut by businesses with lower animal welfare standards and help to confirm Britain’s position as a world leader in animal welfare. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said:
“The way we treat animals reflects our values and the kind of people we are.”
I could not agree more, which is why I urge the Government and this House to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Henry Smith, Sir David Amess, Sir Roger Gale, Dr Lisa Cameron, Caroline Lucas, Christian Wakeford, Mr John Baron, Rosie Cooper, Giles Watling and Tracey Crouch present the Bill.
Henry Smith accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 166).
Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill: Programme (No. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 8 June 2021 (Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill
Wednesday 22nd September 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Act 2021 View all Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 22 September 2021 - (22 Sep 2021)
14:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 52 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
“(5) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report that assesses the impact of the payment of compensation to the customers of London Capital & Finance plc under this section, and in the light of that assessment, sets out the following—
(a) an assessment of the regulatory failures that gave rise to the need to compensate the customers of London Capital & Finance plc;
(b) measures the Government is taking to prevent such regulatory failures in the future;
(c) the reasons why the Government is providing compensation to the customers of London Capital & Finance plc but not the customers of other failed investment firms;
(d) criteria for when the Government should be expected to provide compensation following the collapse of investment firms; and
(e) the reasons for the capping of compensation payments under this section at 80% of what customers of London Capital & Finance would have been entitled to under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament that assesses the impact of the Government compensating the customers of London Capital & Finance plc, as well as broader issues relevant to the mis-selling scandal.
It is a pleasure to open this afternoon’s debate and to speak in favour of amendment 1, which is in my name. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament within six months of the Bill coming into force, with an assessment of the impact of the payment of compensation to customers of LCF. Crucially, it would require the Secretary of State in that report to give an assessment of: the regulatory failures that made the London Capital & Finance compensation scheme necessary; the measures that the Government are taking to prevent such regulatory failures; the reasons why victims of other failed investment schemes, of which there are many, are not being compensated; the criteria for when the Government should be expected to provide compensation following the collapse of investment firms; and, finally, the reasons for the capping of compensation payments under this scheme at 80% of what customers of London Capital & Finance would have been entitled to under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making some good points and has been very vocal in this Chamber to draw attention to the bonds of a similar nature that were also mis-sold. However is not subsection (5)(a) of his amendment, which would require,
“an assessment of the regulatory failures”
already covered by the Gloster report? Is not that exactly what that does? Has the purpose of his amendment not already been achieved through that in-depth and welcome report?
Peter Grant
It may well have been achieved by the Government’s response to the report, but the Gloster report achieved nothing; it only achieves change if the Government accept its recommendations. An amendment that was not pushed to a vote at an earlier stage of proceedings would have required the Government to give regular reports back to Parliament as to what they are doing with the Gloster report. Regardless of whether that amendment had been carried, I would hope that the Government will still do that.
The Government’s explanation for not even considering similar schemes for other mis-selling is that the exact details of London Capital & Finance’s mis-selling were unique and that none of the other mini bond scams were identical in every way. That is probably true because no two investment scams are identical in every way. The crooks will always find a slightly different way to get more money out of the victims, or to avoid whatever detection and prevention schemes are being developed, but the differences between the two companies are tiny compared to the similarities.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to take the hon. Gentleman back to the point made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). Is not the problem the fact that we are being asked by the Government to believe that, as a result of the Gloster report, the FCA has fundamentally changed and that there is not going to be a problem ever again with how the FCA regulates? Is there not a need for another body to keep oversight of the quality of financial regulation, and perhaps in particular over whether the FCA continues to do its job properly in the future?
Peter Grant
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which is well worth consideration. I do not want to go into the detail of how we should fix what is wrong with the Financial Conduct Authority just now. The first thing that we have to do is recognise that it ain’t working, and regardless of what promises and assurances we have had, it still is not working. Whether that is best dealt with by putting yet another monitor on top of the regulator to monitor it, I do not know, but there has to be recognition that the existing scheme of regulation, as it is carried out by the Financial Conduct Authority, is simply not fit for purpose. The same applies to the parts of the regulatory environment that fall under other Government Departments. It is not only Treasury Ministers who have such responsibilities.
Let me return to the similarities between London Capital & Finance and Blackmore Bond. They both misled their victims into believing that their activities were regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. The only difference was that London Capital & Finance had a registration for something else, which it hid behind. Blackmore Bond did not have a registration of its own, but it hid behind the registration of other companies, which knowingly allowed their names to be associated with the marketing and selling of its products. The intention in both cases was the same, and that was to mislead—effectively, to con the customers. The results were the same: thousands of people lost everything. I do not understand why there is such resistance in the Government to saying that the remedy should be the same, or even to consider that the remedy should be the same.
In the immediate aftermath of the collapse of London Capital & Finance, the Financial Conduct Authority took steps to outlaw the marketing of mini bonds to retail investors. It outlawed the very practice that was at the cornerstone of London Capital & Finance’s business plan, as it was for Blackmore Bond and many others. There is still no explanation as to why, when the FCA was able to act so swiftly and decisively to close the door after the horses had gone, it took no effective action to stop those mis-sales years earlier, after it had been given credible and persuasive evidence of exactly what was happening in the mini bond market.
In earlier stages, I have raised concerns that there were other Blackmore Bonds just waiting to come to our attention. There were probably other mini bond-based businesses about to collapse. There were probably other investors about to face the awful reality that they had lost everything. That might be happening even as we discuss this Bill.
Last week, none other than Private Eye magazine reported that another mini bond company, Moregreen Capital Ltd, had written to its investors asking them to forgo their next interest payment. That might be the starting signs of severe trouble. I cannot confirm anything that was in the Private Eye article, and I cannot confirm very much from the public domain about Moregreen Capital Ltd in the way that I could for Blackmore Bond, for the simple reason that Moregreen Capital has failed to file its accounts for the last two years. Its only published accounts were so early in its trading history that today they are almost certainly useless. I should also make it clear, as is often the case, that company names can be similar and that that Moregreen Capital Ltd is unrelated to some other companies with Moregreen in their name. There might well be perfectly valid reasons for the action that Moregreen Capital has taken recently. There could be good reasons why it stopped publishing its accounts, or there might be yet another group of investors who are in the first stage of a journey that sees them lose everything with, as things stand, no prospect of compensation. The best-case scenario for Moregreen Capital’s investors is that they have nothing to worry about—that their investments are safe and that they will eventually get all the funds they were promised. But even if the best-case scenario pans out with Moregreen Capital, it will only be a matter of time before the next mini bond scandal rears its ugly head. Action has been taken to prevent that precise form of financial scam being allowed again, but we need action to anticipate and predict what scams will arise in future and to prevent them before they are allowed to take place. We have to recognise that thousands of people are victims of crime. They were the victims of criminal activity and they should be compensated in the same way as other victims of criminal activity have been compensated.
The amendment does not require the Government to establish an additional scheme, but it does require them to get this debate started. We in this Parliament are ultimately responsible for the regulatory framework in these islands. We collectively, and our predecessors, are ultimately responsible for having to set in place and to enforce a regulatory environment that would have protected our constituents from losing everything.
One of the examples I cited earlier was a retired military person who told Blackmore Bond’s directors, “This is my military pension—I can’t afford to lose it.” They took it and they lost it. That person deserves compensation. They have no chance of getting compensation out of Blackmore Bond. They are not covered by the financial services compensation scheme. Surely the Government have to agree that there is a case to be looked at in such examples. We have to look at a wider compensation scheme, in the same way we have for people who lose their holiday because their travel agent goes bust. Losing a holiday, which has happened to a lot of people over the past couple of years, is not a nice thing to happen—it is a distressing thing to happen—but when people lose their holiday, at worst they lose money they could afford to spend on a holiday; when people lose their pension they are losing their livelihood for the rest of their life. There has to be better provision for compensation for those who, through no fault of their own, see their pension, their plan for retirement and the future of their family’s financial security wiped out by charlatans who right now are taking advantage of a regulatory environment that is open to abuse.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
On the allocation of compensation to different individuals, all victims are victims of this scam, but is the hon. Gentleman saying that priority should be given to those who have suffered the most when it comes to how the Government move forward in the allocation of compensation for their losses?
Peter Grant
We have to remember that we are dealing with a large number of people. It is not just one company with 50 or 60 people who are victims; there are thousands of victims that we know of and probably many more than we do not know of, and the amounts of money that they have lost individually are life-changing for them. Someone who has worked for 20 years on a Member of Parliament’s salary probably has £20,000 or £30,000 they can afford to lose; these people did not. The amounts they have lost individually are significant; the amount that has been stolen collectively, as I said, is almost certainly over £1 billion. If people stole £1 billion out of a bank vault, law enforcement would not stop until every last one of them was behind bars for a very long time, and would, if need be, change the rules to make sure that it could not happen again. We should regard the theft of £1 billion out of people’s pension funds just as seriously as the theft of £1 billion of gold bullion out of the back of a Securicor van. All this amendment asks is that the Government recognise that as an issue and start to put answers in place as to how they can protect our constituents from falling victim to these scams in future.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to debate these issues. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) is interesting. Certainly I very much support the broad principle of greater scrutiny of the FCA, but I cannot support his amendment because I do not feel that it is effective, not least regarding the issues I raised earlier. Some of the issues in it have already been addressed. The regulatory failures were clearly identified in the excellent Gloster report. The report also—this was welcome—named individuals in the FCA who had failed and who tried to have their names redacted from it and exempted from any specific criticism. One of the cultural issues with the FCA is the lack of individual accountability either in the organisation itself or the organisations they regulate.
In subsection (5)(e) the hon. Gentleman talks about why we are compensating only 80% of the losses of individuals who lost money in London Capital & Finance. That speaks to a broad principle. Many of the investments people make have to be subject to the principle of caveat emptor. Especially with a relatively high-risk investment, it is incumbent on any investor to look at it and judge the risk for themselves. Some form of protection from the regulator is also required, but the regulator cannot be all things to all people and cannot be in all places at once. I had a constituent come to me who had lost a significant amount of money in London Capital & Finance investments, and they were quite clear that they understood that as they were getting an 8% return, whereas in a bank they would probably get 0.5% maximum in interest, there was a risk involved in such investment. It is quite obvious to most people that that is the case, whether they are sophisticated or unsophisticated investors. The broad principle of an investor having to look at the investment and judge for themselves is very important.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but does he also accept that many small investors were actually misled—the Gloster report shows this—by the advice they were given by people in the FCA who indicated that the company was covered by the FCA and therefore they were guaranteed to get £5,000 if the firm went bust? That information was wrong, so some people made an informed investment decision on the wrong information supplied by the regulatory agency.
Kevin Hollinrake
Anybody reading the report will be appalled by the regulator’s performance in this case, given not just the number of complaints about LCF but the lack of joined-up thinking within the FCA. This was some years down the line; it happened after Andrew Bailey had taken over at the FCA. He knew there were problems right at the start, but there was no joining of the dots and there were the clear allegations of inappropriate conduct within LCF. The independent financial adviser who drew attention to it was a very competent person; he was not simply raising the issue saying, “I don’t like this company.”
The IFA was called Neil Liversidge. He wrote to the FCA setting out exactly what was going wrong with the designation of unsophisticated investors as sophisticated, the encouragement to class themselves as sophisticated, and where some of the investments were going. It was pretty clear what the problem was at LCF, and the FCA failed to act. That is simply unacceptable. That is why I welcome the compensation. However, it still has to be down to investors to make an educated decision. Certainly my constituent and others I have seen could see that this was not a Government gilt they were investing in; there were obviously some risks attached.
Rehman Chishti
My hon. Friend says that he welcomes the compensation that is being made. Of course, so do I and so does everybody else here, but linked to the question of compensation is justice and the delay in bringing the perpetrators to account through the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. I would be grateful if the Minister or my hon. Friend could say why there is such a delay in to bringing those perpetrators to account, because people want compensation but they also want justice and to have the perpetrators brought to account.
Kevin Hollinrake
I could not agree more. The UK has a pretty poor record in terms of bringing forward fraud prosecutions. There are a number of things we need to do that are not really within the scope of this Bill. Not the least of them —the Government are committed to this—is bringing forward an offence of a failure to prevent an economic crime. That would make it far easier for the SFO to bring forward prosecutions. I would welcome my hon. Friend’s joining my campaign to bring that legislation forward, because it would make a huge difference to the SFO’s ability to bring forward speedy prosecutions.
Rehman Chishti
I am very happy to support my hon. Friend’s campaign to ensure that justice is done in this case.
Kevin Hollinrake
That is very welcome.
The key point in the amendment is about oversight. I am concerned that the FCA is not as accountable as it could be to this House. With repatriation, a number of regulations and regulatory oversight of the FCA have now passed back to us domestically whereas before there was accountability through the EU institutions. I am concerned that we have proper oversight of what the FCA does. The hon. Member for Glenrothes and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) are quite right: the jury is still out on the FCA. It has made some bold claims that it is reforming and becoming more effective. I welcome the fact that only a couple of weeks ago it set out some clear targets for a reduction in the number of investors investing in high-risk investment and being subject to scams. There are some specific criteria that the House can now hold it to account for; I am just not clear how we do so. I can see how the Treasury does so, but it is important that the House can, too.
In the work that I have done on the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, we have seen numerous cases in which the FCA has not been proactive or used the mechanisms at its disposal to sanction the people responsible. That is simply unacceptable. The FCA must be a much more proactive organisation and, for it to be held account for such proactivity, we need a clear line of responsibility between it and the House and its Members. The amendment is a good attempt, but not one that I can support.
Gareth Thomas
I am sympathetic to the broad thrust of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and his concern, which I alluded to in my intervention, that the Government, and certainly the FCA, appear to be saying, “Don’t worry—we’ve had a change of leadership and everything is going to be all right now. You don’t need to worry about the quality of the regulation of investment firms going forward, or the implementation and enforcement of consumer financial regulation, whether in this case or more generally.” I have some sympathy with the point of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) that we should be sceptical about such a claim. It is good that Treasury Ministers will be having a more regular dialogue with the FCA, partly as a result of this scandal.
As the House knows, I have taken a particular interest in the demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria. That is very different from the case of LCF, so it would not be appropriate for me to go into the particular details, but there are parallels in the treatment of Liverpool Victoria consumers and those of LCF products. Some of those parallels relate to the culture that appears to exist within the FCA. The all-party parliamentary group for mutuals received a letter from the FCA and one from the PRA, and they reveal that there have been almost 60 meetings between the regulators and the board of Liverpool Victoria, but not one meeting with its consumer-owners on its demutualisation. I wonder whether there is not a frog in hot water-type problem here, with the FCA so close to the Liverpool Victoria board in this case—and potentially to other financial firms—that it fails, perhaps accidently, to do its job on behalf of consumers with sufficient robustness.
I welcome the Dame Elizabeth Gloster report, which was excoriating in its findings. To pick out some key concerns, it said that there were “unclear” policy documents for use by FCA staff, a
“flawed approach to the Perimeter”
and a “failure to consider” the behaviour of particular businesses holistically. It also said that there was insufficient training of staff and pointed to confusion between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the FCA—our regulators—over the handling of particular issues.
I appreciate that the FCA has not only had a change of personnel but brought forward proposals for a consumer duty to try to rebuild some confidence. However, my problem with the duty, which it consulted on until the end of July, is that there is no sense of understanding the difference between consumers who also own a business—a mutual in this case—and consumers per se, or a willingness to take additional actions for consumers who are also owners. I worry about whether that additional duty will be robust enough.
Rehman Chishti
I really appreciate all the work that the hon. Gentleman has done on this matter. On the consumer duty, my concern, raised with me by local residents, is that the company was allowed to continue trading without investigation in 2015 after warnings of malpractice and maladministration. With his expertise and experience, does he think that, whether through the consumer duty or further regulation following the Gloster inquiry, the measures proposed would prevent what happened in 2015?
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Member invests an awful lot of confidence in me to predict what might happen, but I can well understand a Conservative looking to the Labour party for such guidance. I certainly hope that the consumer duty and better enforcement will help to prevent such a terrible debacle from happening again, because, as the House has rightly noted, many good people have lost an awful lot of money and deserve the compensation that the Bill will provide. However, many others who have been victims of similar cases would have also merited better protection from the FCA.
I will ponder aloud, in response to the Minister having some sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) in Committee, whether there is a need for a smaller body that does not just concentrate on the FCA but looks at some of the strategic issues around consumer protection and financial products in particular, and has a small number of inquiries each year looking at the performance of regulators in that regard, in part to help prevent a repeat of the LCF debacle.
As a model for such a body—I do not suggest it is perfect—I put on the Floor of the House, so to speak, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which the House uses to consider how our international aid money is being spent and the strategic challenges in that. It is a small, dedicated body that operates in a completely different sphere from this, but it produces important and useful reports that are used by the relevant Department, experts in the sector and, crucially, the International Development Committee. I wonder whether such a body would be appropriate to keep the PRA and FCA’s feet to the fire. It could be used by the Treasury Committee, and indeed other Committees of the House, to assess the quality of consumer financial regulation and the job that the FCA, PRA and other regulators are doing to protect consumers from any repeat of the LCF debacle.
Rehman Chishti
The hon. Gentleman’s idea of an independent committee should be considered among the wider tools to get the right support for consumers. Of course, I have admiration for him because, being a fair man, I see he also went to the University of Wales Aberystwyth, and we were taught at university always to respect other colleagues’ talents. That is why I respect his expertise on this matter.
Gareth Thomas
I am not sure I need to respond other than to thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am sure that many other people in the House often get frustrated, as I do, at unaccountable independent bodies or arm’s length bodies, and I might mention not least the FCA, possibly the Environment Agency and perhaps the NHS as well. Would it not be better for the FCA to have a direct line of accountability to those who are elected by the people of this country and for the body the hon. Member recommends to be made up of parliamentarians from either House?
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Member may be right. I simply put out the idea at this stage, and I hope Ministers will be sympathetic to it, that we should not just accept the sense that, following Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report, the payment of compensation and the introduction by the FCA of this new consumer duty, everything is suddenly all right in the world of consumer financial regulation. Perhaps Ministers on the Treasury Bench are inadvertently suggesting that. I think another step needs to be taken to hold the feet of regulators to the fire.
I will briefly raise two other concerns about financial regulation and some of the lessons that need to be taken from the LCF debacle, which the amendment from the hon. Member for Glenrothes helpfully gives me the opportunity to raise. The first is the idea that all the information available to the boards and the management of companies that has to be shared with the FCA and the PRA from time to time should be regarded as commercially sensitive. Clearly, there is genuinely commercially sensitive information that it is right for companies and businesses to keep for themselves. However, I fear—certainly in the case of Liverpool Victoria, which I have been looking at—that the excuse that information is financially sensitive is being used to deny consumers’ legitimate rights to know what the future holds for the business in which they have invested their savings or money. I gently suggest that that topic is worthy of a review in itself, potentially with changes to regulatory practice and, if need be, to legislation.
Lastly, the existence in legislation at the moment of provisions for so-called independent experts to look at the decisions that boards are taking in the context of demutualisations are a recipe for regulatory failure. In the case of Liverpool Victoria, independent experts are being appointed by the board, paid by the board and briefed by the board. Obviously, it is fairly easy to predict what the outcome of the independent experts’ work is going to be: to recommend largely what the board wants to happen. That is another issue that needs to be looked at.
I put those points on the record to suggest that Ministers should not be complacent about the quality of the FCA’s performance. There needs to be a bit more of a robust challenge and a look again at how financial regulation works.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I want to use the opportunity provided by the amendment to raise a few points, particularly about clause 1, and to put them to the Minister. I thank Dame Elizabeth Gloster and both the Treasury Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee for the work they have done on this issue.
The issues covered by the Bill have been widely set out in debates on Second Reading and in Committee. They include: the wholly deficient practices at the FCA that meant that hundreds of reports of harm were not acted on, which was described by Dame Elizabeth Gloster as an “egregious” failure of the FCA to fulfil its statutory duties; the fact that this failure allowed LCF to continue in operation for years longer than it might otherwise have, thereby multiplying the harm to investors; the reassurance at one point from the FCA that what was happening was not a scam; the impact of the halo effect in having a regulated firm selling unregulated products, leading unsuspecting investors to believe that these products were far safer than they actually were; the loss of a whistleblower’s letter three years before the firm’s collapse, and the damning conclusion from Dame Elizabeth Gloster that the loss of that letter probably did not make any difference, because the FCA was so dysfunctional that, even if it had not been lost, it would not have been acted on; the repeated failure to join the dots and the treating of each LCF transgression—for example, on its use of financial promotions—as an isolated incident, when instead it was a pattern of behaviour designed to use its regulated status to bolster confidence in unregulated products; and the public disagreement between Dame Elizabeth and the Governor of the Bank of England about the issues of responsibility and personal culpability.
I served on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which said that
“a buck that does not stop with an individual stops nowhere.”
That quote has been much used in the debate about this issue, which has raised sharply the limitations of collective accountability and the question of whether in this case the buck really stopped with anyone. Of course, most importantly of all, there is the issue of the distress and the financial loss to investors and the question of how they should be compensated. All of this has led to the Government stepping in with this Bill to authorise compensation up to a certain level for investors.
Based on the amendment, I want to put a number of questions to the Minister arising from the Bill. First, why has compensation been set at 80% of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme maximum of £86,000, not the full level? That is probably the main outstanding concern of LCF investors, who are grateful that compensation will come but who cannot understand the 80% cap given the manifest failures set out in Dame Elizabeth’s report. Are the Government completely fixed on this 80% figure, or is there any prospect of that being reconsidered?
Rehman Chishti
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and I will of course raise the same point with the Minister in due course. The right hon. Gentleman says that the victims will of course welcome the compensation coming their way, but the point raised with me by those who have suffered a loss is whether the Government can look to prioritise those who have suffered the most due to their loss. There has been a lot of data gathering by the FSCS, the FCA and the Serious Fraud Office, so that should be easily apparent. What is his view about ensuring that compensation is quickly given out and prioritised to those who have suffered the most?
Mr McFadden
The hon. Member raises a very fair point. It has already been referenced in the debate that this is not just about amounts, but about the timescale, and we all want the Government and whoever is administering this scheme to be able to get on with it.
Sammy Wilson
I understand the point, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that defining those who have suffered the most could be quite difficult? Are those who have suffered the most those who have lost the most, or perhaps those who are not all that well-off and have found that they had lost all of their savings, even though all of their savings would not have been the same as the loss of some of the bigger investors? Does he accept that that is a difficult definition?
Mr McFadden
The right hon. Member raises a very fair point. If we pluck a sum of money out of the air, it could be a lot of money to one person and perhaps less to somebody else, depending on their wealth.
Let me return to the questions for the Minister arising from the amendment and the Bill. The second is the important question of where the decision to compensate the LCF investors leaves investors in other firms where regulatory failure is alleged. Where has the bar now been set for future compensation in the event of regulatory failure? The taxpayer cannot stand behind every investment loss. Some investors will make money and some will lose. That is in the nature of a market economy. However, the question of compensation arises when there is a clear regulatory failure, because that is considered to be a different matter. Having come up with this scheme, where do the Government now draw the line?
How can we be sure this will not happen again? There are two aspects to this question. The first is the role of the regulator. The FCA is going through a transformation programme designed to ensure that changes are made to prevent a similar thing from happening in the future.
Peter Grant
There is clearly a need to specify which kinds of investment losses might be compensated, and which ones will not be. Given that the Financial Conduct Authority has outlawed the targeting of mini-bonds at retail investors, is that a clear indication that something was fundamentally flawed with all selling of those bonds, whether it was done by LCF, Blackmore Bond, or anybody else?
Mr McFadden
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. On how we can be sure that this will not happen again, and the transformation programme, it is to be expected that companies would go through such a programme, given the damning nature of Dame Elizabeth’s findings. There is also, however—and this is not just about this specific case—understandable public scepticism when a scandal happens, people talk about lessons being learned, there are some changes to management, and the organisation moves on. How do we ensure that, while understandable, such public scepticism is not justified in this case because something different is happening, and that we will not end up back here, some time in the future, debating another investment scam that was not spotted and acted on in time?
The second aspect to the question of how we can ensure that this does not happen again relates to legislative protections. This scam was promoted by a lot of online advertising. The online safety Bill is coming up, and at the moment paid-for advertising is excluded from that. Why should that be the case? Surely the LCF case shows that paid-for advertising must be included. As the Minister will be aware, there is a growing coalition behind the argument that the online safety Bill must offer greater protection against financial scams and fraud, and that is bound to be a major issue as the Bill goes through the House.
That issue is important, because consumers are being targeted every day with adverts, text messages, emails, and phone calls geared either to obtaining their financial details, or promising get-rich-quick schemes. As covid has pushed more of our lives online, it is imperative that legislation keeps pace with the increased use of online scams that are designed to strip people of their money. It is becoming more and more difficult for consumers to ascertain the difference between a genuine approach and a scam approach. We in this House have a legislative duty to keep pace with what organised criminals are trying to do.
Mr McFadden
I am coming to the end of my remarks; I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I leave the Minister with this: is it not better to try to stop people being ripped off in the first place, than to have to ask the taxpayer or, as in clause 2, members of pension schemes, to compensate people after such scams have already happened? I will leave it there, although I will later have a few remarks and questions about clause 2.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
It is an honour and privilege to respond at Report of this important Bill, which deals with the compensation due to many of our constituents up and down the country. I pass on apologies from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury who is on a ministerial trip to the United States on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government.
As the House will be aware, Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report has already been taken through. It is a detailed report that deals with the regulatory failures that led to the collapse of LCF. The Government have accepted all four of the Gloster recommendations, and the FCA has committed to implementing all nine of the recommendations that were addressed to it, and to report publicly on the progress of those vital reforms.
Progress has already been made in implementing those recommendations. For example, the Treasury has consulted on proposals to regulate so-called non-transferable debt securities. In respect of regular reporting, hon. Members should be aware that the FCA report on the transformation programme takes place every six months. Its last report took place in July 2021, and the next report will be in spring next year.
Colleagues have raised a number of different matters, and I will attempt briefly to deal with them. The hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) recommended to Treasury colleagues that parliamentarians should hold the FCA to account directly, and I am sure my Treasury colleagues will respond to that proposal by letter. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made some comments, and it is right that the FCA needs to be more proactive. To be fair, its new chief executive, with whom I know my hon. Friend is familiar, is being more proactive, and there is proper oversight on an ongoing basis. Several colleagues mentioned the online harms Bill. I have engaged with and met Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram, as have colleagues from other parts of Government. Those individual companies need to step up to the plate, because it is very much in their domain to make real change.
Rehman Chishti
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me briefly to intervene. He said he has had conversations with those social media companies. I sat on the Home Affairs Committee when we discussed online harms. What was the response of those social media companies, and what will it take to get them to do the right thing?
Guy Opperman
It will take strong pressure by fantastically good constituency MPs such as my hon. Friend, and others, so that those companies realise that they have an obligation to do the right thing in respect of the many constituents we represent. Clearly, though, these are matters to be considered by the Government, and I am sure my hon. Friend will be making representations to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Let me turn briefly to the amendment. A lot of the speeches made had nothing to do with the amendment, and it is important to avoid creating the misconception that the Government will stand behind all bad investments in the future, where FSCS protection does not apply. The Government will establish a scheme based on the level of FSCS compensation, capped at £85,000. We have carefully considered the issues and are satisfied that the individual circumstances surrounding LCF are completely unique. Other mini-bond firms have failed, but LCF is the only mini-bond firm that was authorised by the FCA and sold bonds in order to on-lend to other companies. As the House will know, only three Government compensation schemes have been established in the past three decades, for Barlow Clowes, Equitable Life, and now LCF, despite many firms failing over that period. This type of intervention is the exception, not the rule.
Although the amendment is legitimate and considered to be principled and practical, there is a practical reality that the FCA is already reporting and is held to account by the Treasury. With respect, I therefore ask the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) to withdraw his amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made,
Mr McFadden
We have just had a short debate on an amendment that was largely focused on clause 1. Before we finish the Commons stages, I want to put a few questions to the Minister, mainly relating to clause 2 and pensions.
We discussed some of these issues in Committee. Clause 2 imposes a levy on the pension schemes to pay for the consequences of the Dalriada case, which means that the pension fund compensation scheme has to raise what Ministers expect to be around £300 million. I have a few questions about that.
My first question is about the flat-rate way of raising such levies. It leaves schemes with large numbers of members, many of whom have small pension pots—for example, those on auto-enrolment schemes—paying a significant proportion of the levy, even though they are run in a completely honest way that has never been near any kind of pension fraud. Have the Government considered a more proportionate way of raising such levies, to protect pension scheme members with very small pots?
My second question is about the relationship between the greater pension freedoms in recent years and the risks of scams and financial fraud. The advent of these freedoms has resulted in a number of examples where unsuspecting pensioners have been persuaded to transfer their pensions in ways that were not in their interests or, even worse, that led to fraud and a loss of their hard-earned savings. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions has shown significant interest in the issue, and it has received estimates from the Pension Scams Industry Group that 40,000 people may have lost up to £10 billion since the pension freedoms were introduced in 2015.
Thirdly, great fanfare was made of advice and guidance when the pension freedoms legislation was introduced, but take-up has been very low, and efforts by the Department to improve it have not radically changed the proportion of people accessing good advice. Without good advice, pension scheme members are left much more vulnerable to unscrupulous sales pitches or, alternatively, bad decisions that are clearly not in their interests but may be in the interests of the financial adviser advising them. What are the Minister and his colleagues doing to change the situation with regard to pensions advice?
Finally, those accessing their pensions under the age of 55 are subject to a hefty tax charge, but sometimes people are persuaded to do this because they are advised that there is no tax charge and they will not have to pay any tax. They then find themselves not just victims of a scam but pursued by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. What can the Minister do to persuade HMRC to take account of the difference between someone acting on false information and someone knowing that they will incur a tax charge? I would be grateful if the Minister could address those questions before we finish.
In my last contribution to the debates on this Bill, I want to thank the Minister and his colleague the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for their consideration of the points that have been raised throughout by hon. Members. I also thank the Clerks and the Bill team for their responses to inquiries. We will support the Bill because we want this compensation to be paid out, but I hope that the Minister will consider some of the questions we have raised about the nature of scams and the need to do more to protect consumers. Although this Bill will go through tonight, I have no doubt that consumer protection, frauds, scams and the amount of things happening online will be raised again when we debate the Online Safety Bill in the weeks and months to come.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Treasury deserves great credit for introducing this compensation scheme in the first place. It is a pity that the Minister responsible—my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary—is not on duty today, because he deserves personal credit for that, but the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) is an excellent stand-in.
Warren Buffett once said that what we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. The key lesson that we have to learn from this sorry episode—a damning assessment of the Financial Conduct Authority’s capability as a regulator at the time—is the need for scrutiny of the regulator. As many Members know, I do quite a lot of work trying to hold banks to account in the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, but I still do not know how this place holds the regulator to account. I know that the Treasury has some direct influence, and the Treasury Committee can write reports and conduct inquiries, but I still do not know of a direct mechanism that can be used by this House to address regulation and regulations.
Now that we have repatriated the oversight function from the European Union, various different suggestions have been made as to how that might happen in this House. One of the most interesting proposals is for something along the lines of the Public Accounts Committee—a regulatory accounts committee, supported by a version of the National Audit Office, so that professionals would sit behind a parliamentary committee made up of elected parliamentarians. Whoever holds the regulator to account should be accountable to the public; they should not be an independent body of appointees. There must be a mechanism to make sure that the regulator does the right thing, makes good on its future commitments and ensures that episodes like this do not happen again.
The Gloster report, which led to the compensation scheme that we are putting in place today, made very damning criticisms of the then governor of the FCA, Andrew Bailey, who is now the Governor of the Bank of England. I have experience of dealing with the FCA and Andrew Bailey—I asked him four times whether he had followed the FCA’s own whistleblowing procedures when handling the case of Sally Masterton’s whistleblower complaint with HBOS Reading and Lloyds. He refused to answer that question, which I find horrendous. Both the FCA and the whistleblowing legislation were established by statute, yet we as parliamentarians cannot hold the regulator—which we put in place—to account. We need a better system of regulatory oversight.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Residents in Hastings and Rye have been victims of London Capital & Finance. Does my hon. Friend agree that if people do something in good faith, get the right advice and the right system is in place, there should be measures in place to ensure that they do not end up on the back foot?
Kevin Hollinrake
As I said on Report, it is incumbent on investors to check out investments. If something is paying out 8% when they can get 0.5% from their bank, they must say, “Well, this is more risky than simply putting it in the bank.” We cannot lose sight of that principle. However, the least we can expect is a regulator that is proactive. In 2015, a number of people were raising concerns about LC&F, including an independent financial adviser who wrote in detail to the FCA to say what was happening at LC&F, but the FCA did nothing for four years, which is totally unacceptable. People deserve a higher standard of regulation.
On the Online Safety Bill, London Capital & Finance spent £20 million on Google advertising. It is clear that platforms are playing a role in this. This was not even seen as a scam. We can argue that it was a scam, but it was to some extent regulated by the FCA. UK Finance has released a report today saying that online scams are now a national security risk. We must take seriously its calls for more action to be taken. The Online Safety Bill must be the right place to legislate to require the platforms to at least establish whether the investment companies—the people who are advertising investments—are bona fide organisations, and not simply people impersonating them.
With that, I will conclude. I am keen to hear the Minister’s words in his summing up.
Peter Grant
The SNP will, as we indicated, support the Bill on Third Reading. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate today. There were a number of interesting contributions on my amendment. I understand why some people did not feel they could support it in its entirety, but I was very clear that across the House the intention behind the amendment has a considerable amount of support. I hope the Government will take that on board.
The second point that became clear during the debate is that the regulatory failures that allowed London Capital & Finance to happen were not restricted to the FCA. There were catastrophic failures in that organisation—that is now undeniable—but they were not the only failures. It was not only the FCA that let down investors in some of the other scam companies mentioned during consideration of the Bill. Companies House did not enforce the requirements to publish company information. It says it is not its job to verify that companies submit the names of directors, for example. If that is not the responsibility of Companies House, whose responsibility is it?
Nobody enforces the rules that require companies to publish their annual accounts and other critical information on time. Companies and directors can have literally dozens of yellow card suspensions against a company, but then they are lifted and nothing ever happens to them. Those requirements are essential if people with an interest in a company are to get an early warning that things are going wrong. If those requirements are not observed, companies can be sunk before anybody has a chance to do anything about it.
I appreciate that part of that issue is not within the remit of the Treasury, but I hope that what comes out of these proceedings is that colleagues on the Treasury Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee will have plenty of new material to work on. Clearly, this is a failing of such proportions and complexity it will take more than one piece of legislation to put it right. Ultimately, we are the regulators. Every time we say there has been a failure of regulation, what we are saying is that we, in this Parliament, have failed to protect our constituents properly, so there needs to be a degree of humility among all of us at the degree to which this Parliament and its machinery failed to predict, identify, prevent and remedy the scams that we have, sadly, spent so much time talking about over the past few months.
In supporting the Bill, I share the comments made towards the Treasury team. I have been very grateful for the positive way in which many of my comments have been taken by Ministers, which does not always happen with comments from Opposition Members. A big shout out to Salma and Scott in the SNP research team, who once again made me sound as if I knew what I was talking about, which is quite an achievement. A big thank you, also, to all those who gave evidence, either written or oral. Some were talking about things that had hurt them greatly. It was difficult for them to talk about that on the record. I hope the Bill has been made a bit better as a result of their contributions and I hope their contributions will have made sure that the issues raised, if they have not been dealt with in the Bill, will be dealt with by other legislation very soon.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
I am pleased that the Government have offered compensation to investors who fell victim to the collapse of London Capital & Finance. Many are set to lose significant sums through no fault of their own, having invested in a Financial Conduct Authority approved company and followed advice from London Capital & Finance that the Government and Dame Gloster concluded was misleading. A number of my constituents fall into that category and they have asked that I speak for them today.
The Government have acknowledged that the situation regarding London Capital & Finance is unique and exceptional. As such, the Government stepped in to create a compensation package on a one-off basis. Bondholders invested in what they believed was a regulated and approved company, which of course it was, and the Government expect to pay out significant sums to those affected and eligible. I welcome that. The group of women I met in my constituency who are affected by this issue are not millionaires, and nor were they trying to make a quick buck by investing in risky, speculative finance. These are ordinary people who invested their hard-earned savings in what they believed to be a solid, officially approved and properly regulated product.
Bondholders have been badly let down by London Capital & Finance, but they have also been let down by the regulatory system that was designed to protect them. The independent investigation led by Dame Elizabeth Gloster, which the Government published at the end of last year, concluded that the Financial Conduct Authority did not discharge its functions in respect of London Capital & Finance in a manner which enabled it to effectively fulfil its statutory objectives during the relevant period. Due to the Financial Conduct Authority’s significant regulatory failure, there is a case to be made that the Government scheme ought to provide the same level of compensation as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, namely 100% of loss capped at £85,000 instead of the current £68,000.
Finally, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would write to me to clarify when the Treasury will release details of the timescale of the compensation process, so I can pass that on to my affected constituents. I hope the Government will give due consideration to the points I have raised in today’s debate.
Rehman Chishti
I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy) and it is a real pleasure to follow him on this issue. I thank the Minister and, through the Minister, the Treasury and all involved in the Government for what they have done on this matter. The point made by my hon. Friend and others today is this: there are individuals who have suffered due to no fault of their own. It is absolutely right that each and every one of us who has those constituents stands up and fights to ensure they receive fairness and justice. I thank the Government for doing the right thing by offering compensation in these circumstances. Again, I thank all hon. Members who have pushed for that. Members of Parliament often need to push the Government to do the right thing and I thank the Government for doing the right thing.
The question I have for the Minister—it links to the point made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson)—relates to prioritising individuals who have suffered the most. His point is absolutely right: how do we determine who has suffered the most? Will the Minister ask the Treasury to clarify whether there is a way to determine who has suffered the most? It is only fair and proper to ensure that when money goes out, those who have suffered the most, taking all factors into account, get compensation at the earliest opportunity.
My second point, also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, is on timescale. When will the compensation start to go out? Will it be before or after Christmas? What is the full timescale for the compensation to go out? What people do not like is injustice or delayed justice. I speak as a former barrister who prosecuted and defended cases. I understand that serious and complex Serious Fraud Office cases take time, but there needs to be an explanation from the Government to people outside about what is causing the delay and when they will receive justice. We know a fraud has been committed. We know the Gloster report identified a wrongdoing. Can the Minister therefore seek a clarification from the Attorney General’s office on the timeline for prosecuting individuals?
My third point, raised by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), is on what action the Government will take with regards to false advertisements and online harms. When I was a member of the Home Affairs Committee, we had the same issue with regards to extremism and material going online. We asked Google, YouTube and all the other social platforms what action they were going to take. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that it is down to Members of Parliament like myself to push Google to do that, but we do not have the same clout as the Government—or the sanctions and levers available to the Government. If the new Secretary of State for Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport wants to look at platform verifications, that is something she may want to consider. I say to the Minister: will he please get the compensation out as quickly as possible and ensure that lessons are learned so that nothing like this ever happens again in our financial regulation of institutions?
Guy Opperman
I rise to respond to colleagues and wrap up the Bill, and I do so with great humility because this is a very serious matter. Many of our constituents up and down the country, regardless of politics, have had grievous losses. It is to the Government’s great credit that from the date of the Gloster report, we have managed to consider the report, draft and introduce legislation, consider it and progress it through the House. I am pleased to say that within six months of Royal Assent, payments will have been made. That is the assurance that the Treasury is willing to give; I most definitely support it, and I am quite sure that colleagues will hold it to account for that. It is very important that the matter is properly scrutinised.
I thank all Members, present or not, who have contributed to the Bill. Clause 1, as colleagues know, will ensure that there is parliamentary authority for the Government to pay compensation to London Capital & Finance bondholders who have not already received compensation from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The Government recognise that this has been a very difficult time for LCF bondholders; I hope that the compensation will offer some relief for the distress and hardship suffered and provide closure on a difficult matter.
The Government expect to pay about £120 million in compensation to approximately 8,800 bondholders in total. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has confidence that all payments will be made within six months of Royal Assent; in the context of previous examples of the process under successive Governments, that is exceptionally fast.
This is also about justice. Having been a prosecutor for 20 years, done nine murder trials and prosecuted as an investigator for the Department of Trade and Industry, when it existed, I can assure the House that I take exceptionally seriously the principle that all people should be held to account within the due process of the law and that our constituents should feel that the due process of the law will be followed. On the comments made in respect of the Attorney General and the Treasury, I can only say that responses will be given to individual Members of Parliament.
Clause 2 will give the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the power to provide a loan to the Pension Protection Fund for the fraud compensation fund. It will ensure that compensation reaches approximately 8,806 individuals on an ongoing basis. It follows the High Court decision in the case of Board of the Pension Protection Fund v. Dalriada Trustees Ltd on 6 November 2020. Again, we have worked very quickly—within a year—to bring consideration and legislation forward so that the fund will have the £350 million that it needs to ensure that pension claims are met. Without these measures, there would not be the capability to make this compensation; that is why we need to provide the loan to ensure that the fund can continue to make compensation for all eligible schemes on an ongoing basis.
I thank the many people who have contributed to the Bill, including the private office and policy teams at the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions. I also thank all Members who have engaged with the Bill. Individual Members of Parliament have made a massive difference; I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy), who spoke very movingly about his amazing campaign on behalf of his constituents. He can be very proud of the way he has championed their cause, and so can my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas).
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton cited Warren Buffett as the guide to all matters going forward. I would respond with Lao Tzu, who it is fair to say is not often heard in the House of Commons: the longest journey starts with the shortest step. I consider that the Government have made many steps to making proper compensation and bringing the right people some recompense for a total injustice. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Subsidy Control Bill
Wednesday 22nd September 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Subsidy Control Act 2022 View all Subsidy Control Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 287 / Noes: 50 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Government are determined to seize the opportunities arising from Brexit. Now that the UK has left the European Union and we are no longer bound by the EU’s regime, we have the freedom to develop a new, bespoke system of subsidy control for the UK that delivers on our national priorities. Before the UK joined the European economic community, as it was then called, there was no framework at all. That absence contributed, I think, to Governments pursuing a failed economic approach with Whitehall trying to run the economy. They distorted competition, often by bailing out unsustainable industries and attempting to pick winners. The regime that the Government have set out in the Bill will help public authorities to deliver subsidies where they are needed, without facing excessive bureaucracy or lengthy pre-approval processes.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
One of the industries that I hope will benefit from the Bill is the steel industry. As my right hon. Friend will know from frequent and very welcome engagements with me on the issue, Liberty Speciality Steels in Stocksbridge is a key employer in my constituency. While we were in the EU, the industry had access to the EU’s research fund for coal and steel. Now that we have left, £182 million is due to be returned to the UK. Will my right hon. Friend look into the possibility of ringfencing that money, given that it has been raised from levies on the steel industry rather than through general taxation, so that we can have a UK fund for innovation in UK steel?
Kwasi Kwarteng
In her brief time in the House, my hon. Friend has been an impressive and focused campaigner on behalf of her constituents and the wider industry. As she knows, I am a particular fan of the steel industry, and want to seek a sustainable future for it here in the UK. I cannot give any budgetary guarantees, as she will appreciate, but this system does give us much more flexibility than was the case previously.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Kwasi Kwarteng
May I make a little more progress? Many other colleagues want to speak.
This is a Bill that promotes autonomy, transparency and accountability. It will empower hundreds of local authorities, as well as the devolved Administrations and other public authorities, to take control, allowing them to design subsidies to meet local needs while also meeting national policy objectives.
Liz Saville Roberts
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way to me now. I wanted to pursue his earlier comment. The Conservatives appear to be perpetuating a gift for blaming the EU for everything, to all intents and purposes, and it is no surprise that we have heard a little more of that today. We must bear it in mind that the UK was known for underutilising EU state rules—we were ranked 22nd out of 28 member states in 2018—and it could be suggested that that was due to Conservative ideology rather than to any intrinsic problem.
This Bill will steamroll devolved competence. Does the Secretary of State agree that it reflects a new Conservative ideology, which is deliberately dismantling the powers of devolved Governments and their accountability as elected Governments per se?
Kwasi Kwarteng
That was a rather lengthy intervention, if I may say so, although I do not want to entrench on the Chair’s prerogative. As the right hon. Lady will appreciate, the Bill is a function of our leaving the EU. We are not trying to rehearse the arguments of Brexit; we were doing that long before she was elected to the House. I was certainly involved in those debates.
The Bill sets out a regime founded on seven clear and transparent principles. According to those principles, the subsidy must be designed to remedy a market failure. It must be designed to bring about a change in behaviour. It cannot normally cover costs that would have been funded in any case. It must be appropriate, proportionate, and designed to minimise any distortions to competition and investment in the United Kingdom. Finally, the public authority giving a subsidy must carry out a balancing test, and proceed only if the benefits of the subsidy outweigh any distortions to UK competition and investment, and to international trade.
Those principles will be supported by guidance for all to see. That will ensure that public authorities fully understand their legal obligations, and will make clear which subsidies are permitted and prohibited and under what circumstances.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
As I understand it, the Bill also gets rid of assisted area status, which in the Welsh context includes my county of Carmarthenshire. Can the Secretary of State explain why the British Government are making it more difficult for the Welsh Government to help businesses in Carmarthenshire?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s description of what the Bill does. If he listens to the rest of my remarks, he may well hear further clarification. Of course, as is always the case, many of these issues will be discussed in Committee if the Bill’s Second Reading receives the assent of the House.
Public authorities will be empowered to make their own assessment of whether a new subsidy meets the requirements of the regime and, in the vast majority of cases, to proceed directly to granting that subsidy. For the first time, the decision on whether to grant a subsidy will always fall to the granting authority itself. For the largest subsidies, or those that present the highest risk of distorting competition, it is worth recalling that the default process under the EU state aid regime could last between nine and 12 months, and that that often determined whether a project could happen or not. Under the new regime, a new body, the UK subsidy advice unit, must publish its report within 30 working days. That is in huge contrast to the nine-to-12 month period under the EU.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) mentioned ideology. One ideology that I hope will always hold firm on this side of the House is that of not wasting taxpayers’ cash. Is the Minister comfortable with the situation in which local authorities and devolved Administrations could grant subsidies of hundreds of thousands of pounds without having to publicly declare them? Would we not be better with a much lower threshold, so that public scrutiny could always be in place?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Local authorities have to declare spending at much lower levels than the figure that my hon. Friend has just put forward. Clearly, transparency is at the centre of what we are trying to achieve. Instead of a year, the whole process will take only a few weeks. It will be a much quicker process and it will allow public authorities to act with far greater agility than before. However, I do not believe that the transparency will be in any way compromised. This is an area that will give more flexibility while not diminishing accountability. In fact, it will enhance accountability because, under the EU state aid regime, there was no way we could change the rules in any way.
At the same time, this is a regime that will provide certainty and confidence to businesses within the UK, and also to those among the foreign investment community who are keen to invest in the UK, by protecting against subsidies that risk distorting competition or causing harmful economic impacts. And of course, the regime will operate alongside our usual, traditional stringent spending controls to ensure the best use of public money.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Minister not see the inherent flaw in his argument about levelling up and treating the whole of the United Kingdom as one, in so far as Northern Ireland will be subject to a dual subsidy regime: the state aid rules imposed by article 10 of the protocol and the Bill that is going through today? So any subsidy that a public authority Northern Ireland wishes to give will be subject to the very one-year scrutiny that he is talking about, whereas a public authority in the rest of the United Kingdom will have it cleared within 20 days, thereby placing any attempt to attract business to Northern Ireland at a disadvantage.
Kwasi Kwarteng
That is precisely why I am addressing this precise point in my speech, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me. We are setting out the detail of a UK regime that is far from simply adhering to the EU, and it will clearly no longer be necessary for Northern Ireland to be subject to the EU state aid regime. That is precisely why we have proposed the change to the Northern Ireland protocol to bring all subsidies within scope of the domestic regime.
The Bill, as hon. and right hon. Members should know, has been informed by a public consultation, which showed broad support for the Government’s proposals. The Government also held a second consultation with the devolved Administrations as we reached the end of the policy work and the considerable time that we spent trying to get the Bill shipshape. That second consultation showed clearly that the UK Government and the devolved Administrations agreed on the fundamentals of the regime, including the seven principles, the objectives for the regime, and the need to respect the devolution settlements and support levelling up.
Liz Saville Roberts
If the devolved Governments are as content as the Secretary of State is saying, why are the Welsh Government making a legal challenge to this Bill?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I said, there is agreement on the fundamentals of the regime. The seven principles are not contested; they are agreed across the devolved Administrations and the UK Government. I am not privy to the exact motivation of the devolved Administration in this case but, as far as the general principles are concerned, there is a wide measure of consensus.
It is worth reminding the House that the devolved Governments will have more control over subsidies than they have ever had before. Previously, it was Brussels that made the decisions about which subsidies could be granted to support viable businesses. Now, with this Bill, it will be for the elected Governments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast to make those decisions.
During the trade and co-operation agreement negotiations and the creation of this new regime, ministerial colleagues, officials and I have worked closely with the devolved Administrations, and I thank those Administrations and the officials and Ministers here in Westminster for their considered and constructive input to the development of this policy.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
As somebody who has represented a border constituency for the past 16 years, I have become increasingly concerned about the additional levels of subsidy that the Welsh Government can give to businesses on the border, putting our Shropshire businesses at a disadvantage. Will the Secretary of State address that point, please?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I have stressed, this regime has been discussed extensively with the devolved Administrations. Clearly we have conflicting views, but I believe the Government have worked constructively with the devolved Administrations and we feel that, along with our localism agenda, this is a step in the right direction. Compared with where we were for nearly 50 years in the EU state aid regime, this Bill is a significant improvement and enhancement that represents much greater devolution in this area than we have ever seen before.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend as afraid as I am that the nationalists in Scotland will use any opportunity to be different and will impose big, generous subsidies to artificially support their own businesses simply to try to ensure that the English feel hard done by because it suits their agenda of separatism? That is not, in any sense, in the interest of the taxpayer.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend makes a legitimate and correct observation about the general obstructionism we sometimes see. There are seven principles outlined in the Bill, however, and one of them is not to distort the UK internal market, so what she says would clearly raise issues.
Our emphasis in this regime is on transparency, accountability and, of course, agility. This all means that we will not simply be replicating the European Commission’s role in the process, requiring a central body in Brussels to sign off on specific subsidies. In other words, the UK Government did not go to great lengths to secure autonomy from the European Union on subsidy control only to reimpose the same old EU rules months later. That is not what this is about. I hope hon. Members will agree that outside the EU we will have the opportunity to do things differently. We did not leave the EU simply to settle back into the old ways of thinking and into the way things were done before. Those days are over.
I strongly believe that making the most of this new regime will need a culture change, not just in public bodies, devolved Administrations and local authorities but in central Government. It will be a culture change to take more responsibility for our own decisions, not simply outsourcing difficult decisions to the European Commission as we did for nearly 50 years. It will mean that we can be more accountable to the electorate for when and how taxpayers’ money is spent, and that we will be more agile in distributing public resources.
The Bill will ensure that our new subsidy system will maintain a competitive, free-market economy that has been central to the UK’s economic prosperity and success for decades. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me start by saying that it is good to see the Secretary of State still in his place after last week’s reshuffle. I also wish to congratulate the new Ministers in his team on their appointments. However, I am sure I am not the only Member of this House who has noticed that there are now no female BEIS Ministers. While businesses across the country recognise the importance of balanced leadership at the top of their organisations, it is remarkable that BEIS seems to be moving in the opposite direction, and overlooking the important contribution that women Ministers make to ministerial teams and indeed to our economic debate.
To turn to the Bill, let me start by thanking the Secretary of State for his opening remarks, in which he laid out the subsidy control principles and talked about the need for autonomy, transparency and accountability in the new regime. Labour recognises the need for subsidy control legislation which establishes the framework for the UK’s post-Brexit regime. As of 1 January this year, EU state aid rules largely no longer apply in the UK. The EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement requires that the EU and the UK maintain their own independent systems of subsidy control. The UK also has to continue to comply with the World Trade Organisation’s subsidies and countervailing measures agreement. The Bill is therefore necessary for us to comply with our international obligations. More than that, however, it is necessary to protect the UK’s internal market and to ensure that public funds are being made available to businesses with the appropriate safeguards in place. That is why we will not be opposing the Bill tonight, but we are seeking to address significant gaps of concern during the passage of the Bill.
Jonathan Edwards
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) alluded to and as the hon. Lady will be aware, the Labour Government in Wales are taking the British Government to court on this issue. Will she explain why the Labour party here in Westminster is not showing solidarity with its colleagues back in Cardiff?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I will be making a considerable contribution on the issues associated with devolution and our grave concerns about this Bill, which we would want to see corrected. They need to be addressed because we want legislative consent to be given and the concerns being raised by devolved Administrations to be addressed.
Much in this proposed regime reflects EU state aid rules, including the definition of a subsidy, the prohibition of unlimited state guarantees and the condition that subsidies should be justified on public interest grounds. Where the Bill significantly differs from the EU’s rules is in its departure from a pre-notification system, where subsidies had to be approved before they were granted. The Bill offers the potential of a quicker system where subsidies are not required to be approved in advance of being implemented, but are subject to a review and appeal system. We want this regime to be robust and to stand the test of time, but the new system will work only if it provides transparency, oversight and scrutiny, and there are key areas of the Bill where those are missing.
First, there are huge gaps in the Bill and crucial aspects are yet to be defined. The Bill may establish a regulatory framework of subsidy control, but it fails to provide any clear indication as to how and where the Government plan to see those subsidies being spent and at what scale. Labour is in favour of a subsidy system that backs British businesses and our economy, but it must operate in the context of a strong UK-wide industrial strategy, which for all intents and purposes is not nearly where it needs to be. Furthermore, there is no clear plan for how the new subsidy control regime will be used to support national priorities such as net zero. Much more needs to be joined up and coherent in the new regime.
Secondly, the Bill in its current form does not provide a fair role for devolved Administrations—we have heard that in hon. Members’ interventions—in developing and implementing the new regime. We believe that changes must be made.
Thirdly, we are concerned that the Bill does not strike the right balance between efficiency and oversight, particularly regarding the role of the Competition and Markets Authority. Transparency is also severely lacking in the case of some subsidies, putting the country at risk of allowing damaging subsidies on the scale of hundreds of thousands of pounds, and allowing the use of public money to continue unknown and therefore unchallenged.
Although the Bill may propose a quicker subsidy regime, we want to understand further how the Government plan for those subsidies to be used, what will be brought forward from the contributions to the Government’s consultation and the response to it, and how that will manifest in the guidance to come.
We have heard the concerns about support for assisted areas or key British sectors and foundation industries, such as steel. As the Minister for Finance and Local Government in the Senedd asked in her letter to the Government:
“If areas that have suffered historical economic disadvantage will no longer have the right to greater flexibility of subsidy over other regions… what alternative approach does the Government propose to ensure that disadvantaged areas can compete on a level playing field?”
Is the equivalent to an assisted areas policy implied under the seven principles, for example, equity rationale or specific policy objectives? In that case, will the Government make that clear in the guidance? Public authorities that will transition to the new regime in our devolved Administrations need that clarity.
Parliament is right to be concerned that the Conservatives are more interested in levelling-up rhetoric than in actually levelling up. In March last year, the regional deprivation fund highlighted that clearly, which led to considerable debate in the House. The Government appeared to direct money not to areas that needed it most, but to areas that seemed to serve their interests. If the Government are truly committed to their levelling-up agenda and their plan for growth, they need to show it. The Secretary of State should publish their plans and detailed guidance on how the subsidy control regime will direct public funds to the communities and businesses that need it most, in the interests of genuinely levelling up in deprived areas and our wider economy.
We also know that the UK has historically spent far less on subsidies than its international counterparts. For example, in 2019 the UK spent just 0.38% of GDP on state aid, far lower than Germany, which spent more than three times that or Hungary and Denmark. Indeed, we were seventh lowest in the EU.
The Secretary of State does not have the strongest record on industrial strategy, given that he scrapped his predecessor’s plan and wound up the Industrial Strategy Council in March.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Why does the hon. Lady equate the fact that the UK has an excellent track record of allowing businesses to stand on their own two feet rather than being bailed out with state aid with not having an industrial strategy? Surely we are backing capitalism as the way for everybody to become richer and be in work.
Seema Malhotra
I will just leave the right hon. Lady with the Institute for Government’s feedback on the Government’s plan for growth, which was that it seemed more like a shopping a list than a prospectus. If those who independently look at what the Government are producing in terms of a plan and our industrial strategy make such comments, the Government would be wise to heed some of that feedback, in the interests of our country. I would like to be having a different debate. I would prefer to have a debate that was much more about content than on whether there is a clear plan.
Let me come back to my speech. We recognise the debate about whether the Government have a strong record on industrial strategy. Last week, the Confederation of British Industry urged the Government to
“build an economy of the future through catalytic public investments”
and to re-find its “role as market maker”. On research and development, innovation, regional growth and hydrogen—on which, perhaps, a strategy has since come forward—the CBI said that further action was needed for the UK
“to remain internationally competitive against peer nations where business investment levels–and public spending…far outstrips our own.”
Sufficiency of strategy is important here; it is not just about the publication of a document. There has been feedback on that, too.
We want to see well-designed, proportionate subsidies as part of the wider industrial strategy that we need to grow the businesses and industries of the future and to invest in our transition to net zero. Labour has also said that we must buy, make and sell more in Britain, as called for by our shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). That is part of how we can ensure resilience in our economy—the need for which has been highlighted only too starkly by the gas-price challenge and the CO2 challenge of the past week.
The Bill lacks in not only vision but key details and scrutiny. The Institute for Government has expressed concerns about the ability of this House and the other place properly to scrutinise the new subsidy control regime, given the important issues that are being left to secondary legislation or guidance. The Institute for Government claims that the gaps left in the Bill by the Government
“could deny Parliament a proper chance to scrutinise how the new system will work”.
The Government’s own impact assessment says:
“There are considerable unknowns—because key features of the regime will be defined later in secondary legislation or statutory guidance. The analysis of the regime’s impact is also based on historical data when UK public authorities had to comply with the EU State aid regime.”
The impact assessment also says:
“We should expect the behaviour of public authorities”—
perhaps the Secretary of State was alluding to this when he talked about culture change— “and the resulting distribution of subsidies to change under the new regime—although it is not possible to forecast how this will change.”
We are yet to hear how the Government plan to define categories such as subsidies “of interest” and “of particular interest”—categories that will determine which subsidies are voluntarily or mandatorily referred to the Competition and Markets Authority. Such definitions are to be determined not now, but through secondary legislation, in respect of which Parliament is given less opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s decisions. To aid scrutiny, which I believe the Secretary of State will want to be to the standards we would want in this House for a regime that will stand the test of time, he should set out the timeline for consultation on and the publication of secondary legislation that covers critical aspects of the new system.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady say why no Labour Back Benchers are present in the Chamber? If this issue means so much to the Labour party, why is it not properly represented in the debate?
Seema Malhotra
I have been involved in extensive discussion with my colleagues, and they will want to make significant contributions in Committee to address the gaps in the Bill. We continue to work on that.
As I was saying, the Secretary of State should set out the timeline for consultation on and the publication of secondary legislation that covers critical aspects of the new system. I know the House will want to see that in good time.
Public bodies have faced significant difficulties since the start of this year precisely because of the lack of guidance on how to interpret the subsidy control principles agreed in the trade and co-operation agreement, so clarity on how public authorities should demonstrate that their subsidies comply with those principles will be an important part of the subsidy regime. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that we will want to see some decisions being made in the interests of how we recover and how we are to grow our economy for the future.
On the important issue of devolution, most importantly of all we are concerned that the Bill has not taken the four-nations approach that is essential for an effective UK-wide subsidy control regime. For example, the balance of the power to challenge between the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations is asymmetric. I am sure that the Secretary of State has heard those representations made to him directly. Twelve months ago, the shadow Secretary of State stood at this Dispatch Box and warned the Prime Minister of the risks of undermining with policy decisions the devolution settlement that has been part of our constitution for two decades and is vital to our Union. However, on the evidence of the legislation before us, it appears that a shift in mindset and thinking has not been a part of how the Government have brought forward this legislation, and we hope that they are going to listen to the concerns that we and other Members are raising.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Let me make a point that almost follows on from the intervention of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). If Labour Members are so concerned about the devolution settlement, why do they not vote against the Bill?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member will have heard my earlier remarks; although we have considerable concerns, we believe that the Bill is vital to us meeting our international obligations and we want it to pass. However, there are significant gaps and issues that must be addressed in Committee. I hope that he will work with Labour on those matters, so that the regime that comes out of this process is one that reflects the four-nations approach that I just articulated.
Stephen Flynn
I appreciate the hon. Member’s remarks and I admire her confidence in being able to get the Government to address Labour’s concerns, but let me just be clear: is it the Labour party’s position that this Bill—irrespective of the damage it does to devolution—should pass?
Seema Malhotra
Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to continue with my remarks, because he has not quite represented our position. It is important that we continue the debate and detailed scrutiny of the Bill. The remarks that I am about to make may provide him with some reassurance on this issue.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Member accept that a regime of control is important for all the devolved areas of the United Kingdom: first, because it is a safeguard against richer regions being able to subsidise more heavily than poorer regions; and secondly, because it is a safeguard against central Government issuing subsidies that could affect the devolved regions? We need a strong regulatory regime.
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Member makes an important point. I will make some points in that regard later in my remarks.
As I was saying, on the evidence of the legislation it appears that the Government have not reflected in the Bill a true four-nations approach in order that we have a UK-wide subsidy regime that commands the confidence and support of all parts of the UK. We do not contest that subsidy control is a reserved matter, but we recognise and support the requirement on public authorities to consider the impact of a subsidy on competition or investment within the UK. It is important for the Secretary of State to make it clear to the House why there is such a limited role for the devolved Administrations in the development of this new regime. They are not even required to be consulted beforehand on advice given by the Secretary of State on the implementation of subsidies.
Under the legislation, the Competition and Markets Authority’s new subsidy advice unit will play an important role in protecting the UK’s internal market, yet the Bill provides no formal role for the devolved Administrations in appointing members to the new unit. Remarkably, the Bill is even less generous than the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which at least requires the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations before making an appointment to the Office for the Internal Market. Can the Government not see how this flies in the face of a four-nations approach?
It is imperative that the devolved Administrations be involved in the development of secondary legislation and in the amendments to the Bill. Even more worryingly, the powers given to the Secretary of State and First Ministers are significantly asymmetric. Although the Secretary of State is explicitly able to challenge Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish subsidies that may damage English interests, no complementary power is given to First Ministers. Unlike the Secretary of State, the devolved Administrations seem unlikely to be able to challenge English subsidies that may be perceived to be causing harm to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish interests. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether this is correct, or is it his intention that First Ministers would be considered as interested parties for the purposes—
Seema Malhotra
I have given way to the right hon. Lady already and I hope she will not mind if I continue my remarks.
Will the Secretary of State clarify whether it is the Government’s intention that First Ministers, or public interest groups, be considered interested parties for the purposes of being able to bring forward a challenge to a subsidy decision—if so, why will the Government not put that in the Bill?—or will a challenge have to be made via the Secretary of State?
This is not where the devolution challenges end. Perhaps the Secretary of State could clarify his remarks on Northern Ireland, because, as I understand it, under article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol, EU state aid rules must apply to subsidies that affect trade between Northern Ireland and the EU. This affects not only subsidies granted in Northern Ireland but subsidies granted throughout the UK. There is a risk—unless the Secretary of State wants to correct me—that article 10, taken alongside the new subsidy regime, could cause legal or practical difficulties, particularly if the UK and EU disagree on what affects EU-Northern Ireland trade.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I thought that I could not have been clearer on this precise point in my opening speech. I repeat: it is clearly no longer necessary for Northern Ireland to be subject to the EU state aid regime, and that is precisely why we proposed a change to the Northern Ireland protocol in order to bring all subsidies within scope of the domestic regime.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Secretary of State. Indeed, I did hear those comments in his opening remarks. I was seeking to clarify the issue because I do not think it is clear across the House, and it is important that it is tested and made clear in the course of the passage of the Bill.
Crucially, what is the Government’s intention if the Bill does not receive legislative consent from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as has been requested?
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Is the hon. Lady suggesting a four-nation approach whereby any one of the nations has a veto over decisions taken by those four nations that they feel are not in their interest?
Seema Malhotra
I am not clear why the hon. Lady refers to a veto. I think we are talking about the symmetry of powers in terms of being able to bring forward a challenge. I hope that makes the point clear.
Seema Malhotra
If it is okay, I want to move on because I am conscious of time, but the hon. Lady may want to make her point in her own remarks.
Finally, on the issues of oversight and enforcement, while well-designed subsidies can support Government objectives and foster growth and opportunity, there are risks too. Subsidies can distort markets, undermine competition and unfairly discriminate between businesses. Effective oversight and enforcement are critical to the success of our subsidy control regime, yet they are lacking in certain areas of the new regime. The Bill does not provide enough certainty as to the definition of “interested parties” that are able to challenge a subsidy. Does that definition extend to local authorities and devolved Administrations?
There are also concerns about the limited powers of the CMA’s new subsidy advice unit under the Bill. We are pleased that a trusted independent regulator is being given key responsibilities. However, as the Bill stands, the CMA lacks any power to instigate an investigation on its own initiative or to take enforcement action. This requires careful consideration, particularly when transparency issues around the Bill are taken into account.
Seema Malhotra
I am sorry but I will move on. I have taken an intervention from the hon. Member, so perhaps he can make his own contribution.
The Government have stipulated that subsidies under £315,000 over three years will not have to be reported on the subsidy database. However, there is an issue, also raised by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), about the threshold and reporting. In the consultation on the Bill, the Government asked whether there should be a minimum threshold of £50,000 below which no subsidies would need to be reported, and 64% of those who responded agreed on that threshold of £50,000. On that general point, what are the Government’s plans for reporting, oversight and accountability arrangements for subsidies below that threshold? I am sure they will want to ensure transparency in how public money is being spent and to whom it is going.
On the decision made for a six-month time limit to upload subsidies to the subsidy database, there was a discussion in the consultation on whether that period should be shorter, or three months. What was the reason for deciding on six months? That seems rather a long time for a decision to be uploaded and therefore in the public domain. If interested parties and the Secretary of State are not made aware of smaller subsidies or those that are uploaded—they have a month to bring a challenge—there will be no opportunity to prevent them going forward, even if they are harmful. The CMA may be able to produce reports on such subsidies, but it will not be able to enforce any of its recommendations. Does that not expose a significant transparency gap in the Bill? The Government could choose to have further reporting requirements. I urge them to review the CMA’s role alongside the necessary transparency requirements for subsidies.
Labour recognises the need to develop a post-Brexit subsidy control regime in line with the UK’s international commitments. There are benefits from a more flexible and speedy subsidy regime, but we have serious concerns about gaps in the Bill that we will look to address during its passage. Those include unanswered questions on the operation of the new regime, its enforcement and oversight, and the role of the devolved Administrations. We want to see legislation that establishes an effective UK-wide subsidy regime that commands confidence across the country. The Bill gives the Government and other public authorities greater powers to provide subsidies. It is an important Bill, but the gaps in it must be addressed.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I am seriously pleased to see the Bill coming forward. It is much needed, not just because, as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) pointed out, it is a fulfilment of our international obligations, but because, as the Secretary of State rightly said, before we went into the EU and had any kind of proper subsidy control regime, it was pretty much a free-for-all and I am afraid that, no matter who was in government, broadly speaking, the lack of rules was terrible.
Politicians on all sides and of all stripes over an extended period have a dreadful track record in yielding to temptation, particularly when they are being lobbied hard by someone pleading desperately for this or that piece of help—it’s just one more wafer-thin subsidy, sir. We give way. We all do—it is only human—and it is a long proven fact that politicians are terrible at picking winners, but losers are really good at picking politicians. It is therefore essential that, as we come out of the EU, we have our UK-only version of a rules-based system in place. The Secretary of State is right to move towards that, even if we did not have those international obligations to deliver it.
I am also pleased to see the seven principles that are the core of the approach, backed up by various other environmental principles as well. They start with the notion that there must be a market failure before any form of taxpayers’ cash can start to be dished out. We can all think of businesses in the past—perhaps even today—that would have liked nothing better than to reach their sticky fingers into the taxpayers’ pockets and extract some cash to make their lives better, their shareholders’ lives simpler and their management’s lives easier. It is therefore absolutely right that the Secretary of State has limited his own freedom—and, more particularly, that of his successors—so that we can have, we hope, a consistent approach and we will not have open season for Government failure. We always talk about market failure in this place, but that principle is crucial for avoiding Government failure in future.
That is a point I made in the Government-commissioned report I was asked to write by the Secretary of State’s predecessor on competition policy. Self-denial is absolutely essential to make sure that we do not start splashing around taxpayers’ cash in an unproductive way and subsidising commercially hopeless cases because they have good lobbyists. The trouble is that the more hopeless they are but the deeper pockets they have and the better lobbyists they have, the harder it is to avoid that kind of temptation.
This is a welcome and necessary Bill, and it is vitally important. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) said earlier, I do not think we should have any truck with the notion that we were not one of the most prolific users of subsidies when we were still part of the EU. We ranked relatively low in the league table against other countries in the EU in our use of subsidies, and as a free marketeer I think that should be a badge of honour. It shows that we are in general allowing capitalism to run and allowing capitalist animal spirits to move resources, investment and productive assets around our economy in the most efficient way to drive our economic growth. Ultimately, it is that economic growth that pays for the public services we all care about, and that we all need and rely on as well. So yes to capitalism and yes to avoiding distortions, discriminations and, dare I say it, potentially the risks of political favouritism if we do not have these rules in place and a rules-based system. I am delighted that this Bill is here, and it establishes some really important principles for all of us.
There is one small fly in the ointment, which I will mention now. I do not want to try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by going into things that will I am sure be properly covered both in Committee and on Report. I will mention the principle at this stage—it has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and by others—and it is the point about transparency. The Secretary of State has made that a central point, and he is absolutely right to say that he wants to establish the UK as one of the leading examples of subsidy transparency in, I think, the world. I may be misquoting him slightly, but I am sure the principle is one he would sign up to.
That is an absolutely core piece because if we do not have such transparency—if we cannot see what these subsidies are or we cannot see what they are until it is too late—how on earth are we to know that this excellent new set of rules-based principles are being followed properly or not? Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as we all know, and exposing this to public scrutiny cannot be bad. Because we are setting up this rules-based system, we should have nothing to hide. If we are worried about transparency, that is always a bad sign in the first place. Therefore, the central principle, which the Secretary of State and his fellow Ministers have already enunciated, is entirely the right one.
My concern is therefore not with the principle that the Secretary of State has enunciated; it is whether or not this Bill will actually deliver the principle in the way he hopes. This is a technical concern, not one of principle at all, but the technical concern is real. We have left the EU, but the EU’s basic rules for disclosure required us to disclose subsidies of above €500,000. The new Bill, as we have heard, has a variety of different exemptions, but broadly speaking it requires us to disclose subsidies of above £500,000. That means we will be disclosing fewer subsidies in future than we were under the EU because the threshold is higher. It is not the only threshold; there are other thresholds. One of them is even higher still, at £725,000, for public interest subsidies of one kind or another, which I think is for subsidising things such as buses and social housing. All those things may very well need subsidies, but why are we being secretive about it? Why should we not make this public?
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
There are very specific exclusions for inclusion on the central database. Would my hon. Friend extend his argument to consideration of those excluded items as well?
John Penrose
There are a couple of exclusions that I think make an awful lot of sense. For example, there is an exclusion about national security, which I hope everybody on all sides of this House would sign up to. However, in principle, to follow and frank the principle that the Secretary of State has rightly put across about how we want to be the most transparent about our use of subsidies—because it will show that we are following those rules, and that we are letting capitalism rip and therefore that productive assets are being used in the most effective way without distortion—in general there should be fewer exclusions, with only the minimal number of exclusions that is safe, although I completely accept that there will need to be some. There is no reason why we should worry about disclosing pretty much any subsidy, particularly because local councils, for example, already have to report anything they spend above £500. They already take records, keep notes, and publish those details, and it would be peculiar to say that although they have to declare spending above £500, they do not have to declare subsidies above £500,000. I am not sure that is terribly consistent.
The Secretary of State has rightly pointed out that when subsidies are notified they have to be turned round and approved or disapproved by the CMA within 30 days. That is entirely right. We need a prompt, nimble, and agile response in order for our economy to work in a prompt, nimble and agile way. It therefore seems odd, if I may put it politely, that we are allowing subsidies not to be registered for up to six months after they have been made. We will therefore have fewer subsidies declared, in a way that does not match what local councils already have to declare. Councils already have to keep such information and data; it is not something they will have to start doing from scratch, and all they will need to do is paste it on to a central database. They also do not have to put it out for six months. These are small technical tweaks, but they are central to delivering on the principle, which the Secretary of State rightly enunciated.
Sammy Wilson
Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that a subsidy could be well in place for six months but then there would be a challenge period of 30 days? If there was a reasonable challenge and another body had lost out, would it not be a bit late?
John Penrose
The right hon. Gentleman is right, particularly because in the modern digitising economy, everything is moving faster and faster every year. Even if that issue was not a problem before—and I think it probably would have been—it certainly would become one in future. There is scope for tightening that part of the Bill technically, so as to deliver on the principles that the Secretary of State has rightly enunciated regarding timing, the degree of transparency and the level of disclosure. As we will have nothing to hide, we should not hide it; we should get it all out there and ensure that it is available.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes some strong points, and I absolutely agree with those about transparency. One objection to lowering the threshold to a few hundred pounds rather than £0.5 million might be the burden of red tape attached, but, as I understand it, the costs for having a database that includes pretty much every subsidy—about £20,000 per annum—are minimal.
John Penrose
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Indeed, he has led me to the final point in my speech. He is right to say—I know Ministers in the Department have this instinctively in the marrow of their bones—that we must not turn this into some bureaucratic red tape burden. Indeed, one chapter in the report that I was asked to write about competition policy refers to reducing red tape burdens. We all understand that too much of that will slow down even the best company and reduce its competitiveness compared with companies in other countries, so he is right to be concerned.
In this case, however, doing what I suggest should reduce the red tape burden rather than add to it. That is because one of the other exemptions, which I think is £325,000, is for a cumulative set of subsidies. If I have three or four subsidies granted by three or four different local councils, or perhaps by a devolved Government and some local councils, and they cumulatively add up to £325,000 over a three-year period, that has to be declared and everyone has to keep track of that. Under the existing Bill, individual councils making those grants will not be keeping that record. They will not be able to, because they will not know what the other councils have done. The companies that are getting those grants will have to keep their own records for three years. That is a business burden that we will create if we do not change the Bill right now.
If we just said instead, “There’s one central public database and everything gets put on it; no company has to keep any records whatsoever because it’s all out there and it’s visible, searchable, clear and transparent,” there would be no extra business burden at all and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton just pointed out, there would be minimal extra public burden, because the local councils, devolved Administrations and Government Departments keep these records anyway. All they would have to do is extend the print range on their spreadsheets slightly further down the page, or organise their automatic file uploads a little more simply, so the burden would be minimal. If we did it that way round rather than what is currently in the Bill, we would avoid creating a new red tape burden.
With that, I will do something unusual for a politician and shut up. This is a good Bill, it is an essential Bill, and it does some really important things. I am really pleased to see it come forward. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing precisely the right thing, in the right way. We have one concern about detail; with any luck, I am sure that can be ironed out.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who gave a fair tour de force of the Bill. I admired his concern about transparency, which was perhaps ironic, given that he sits on the Conservative Benches. The Tories have quite happily dished out billions of pounds worth of contracts to their donors and friends for wasted personal protective equipment throughout the pandemic, but I guess that in real terms, transparency comes and goes depending on—
Kevin Hollinrake
Has the hon. Gentleman bothered to read the National Audit Office report, which specifically says that Ministers had no involvement in any procurement decision? Will he put that properly on the record? All he is doing by making those points is trashing the name of the whole of politics, not just that of the Conservatives. It is a complete nonsense, and he should admit it.
Stephen Flynn
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. It does not put a stain on all of politics; it puts a stain on the Conservative party, where it firmly belongs, because Conservative party donors and friends have gained the most from this pandemic when it has come to contracts. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can argue all they want, but the facts are as clear as that.
Now, to the Bill before us; we got a little side-tracked there. It is important to look at the wider context of the Bill: the present situation, the past regime, and what is to come, which of course is what the Bill sets out. Let us look first at what is in place at this moment in time. As I see it, and as I think all of us in the Chamber will see it, we left the European Union, but we left to a system of nothing. We do not actually have an effective system at the moment. Indeed, I think it was the Institute for Government that deemed the current system to be completely ineffective.
That is understandable. Of course, a public body looking at what it is going to be doing does not want to break any rules, so if it does not have a full understanding of what the rules are, it will obviously err on the side of caution. In many ways, that might be an argument for the Bill. I can certainly understand why that may be the case, and that was what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), intimated in terms of meeting international obligations and the like. I do not think anyone would necessarily disagree with that.
Let us reflect slightly on where we have come from in relation to state aid. Some of this has been touched on already by Members on both sides of the House, but there is one specific aspect of it that I think needs to be aired properly. It was mentioned by the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), at the Dispatch Box during Prime Minister’s questions earlier, and again by the Secretary of State—perhaps not directly, but he certainly inferred it—that state aid was a problem of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. Yet if we look at the facts before us, 95% of all state aid measures did not even go near the European Commission’s desk, so we are almost fixing a problem that did not exist in the terms that the Government think it did, irrespective of how much they want to make Brussels seem like the bad guys.
I appreciate, though I disagree with, the stance of some Conservative Members—the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare made this point, as I think did the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) when she was in her place—that we did not, when we were in the European Union, make the most of what we could do under state aid regulations. However, the facts are that, under those terrible state aid regulations, we invested but a third of what the Germans invested, and a fraction of what others invested, so the big bad guys in Brussels were not so bad after all. Yet we left that arrangement for a system that, at this moment in time, is completely ineffective.
That brings us to the next stage, as represented by this Bill. As I see it, the Bill’s objectives are to enable strategic interventions to support economic recovery, levelling up and net zero. That is not wholly different from the EU state aid rules, which were, of course, to support the environment and innovation. The one slight difference, however, is that the EU state aid rules had a specific remit for the EU regional aid system, whereby people advocated money to be directed to less developed regions.
I have to say that I am a little surprised that there are not a few more red wall Tories present, whose regions could be described as—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) is waving at me; I am sure he will seek to intervene on me in due course. If I were a Conservative Back Bencher representing a constituency in the north of England, I would be deeply concerned about this aspect of the Bill. Although the Government say that the objective of the Bill is to level up, it contains no detail at all. It says that the Secretary of State will come back, subsequent to the Bill, to provide the detail on how levelling up will work. More importantly, we have walked away from a system that put money directly into less developed regions.
Simon Baynes
I am a Conservative Back Bencher representing a red wall seat in north Wales. The previous EU system was very biased against regional and localised issues of deprivation. It went for large areas, but there are plenty of areas in north-east Wales that require the same amount of help as was gifted under the European system. I would argue that the new system is much more direct, much more localised and much more effective.
Stephen Flynn
I admire the hon. Member’s optimism, but I am not quite sure where he has read that, because, of course, the Bill does not have that detail. He is hoping that the Secretary of State will subsequently provide that detail, but the Bill does not make that clear.
Another extremely important point that the Bill does not make clear is in relation to relocation subsidies. Essentially, the Government are saying that they will not relocate subsidies to areas with a more significant problem. They might want to level up—to use their term—but that is not going to happen under the terms of the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in fact, the Bill does the opposite of levelling up, in that it refuses to allow anything to happen in disadvantaged areas that will disadvantage rich areas? That is how the Bill is written—it is in schedule 1F.
Stephen Flynn
My hon. Friend could not have put it better. It is a pity that there are not more Tory Back Benchers present to hear her and understand the damage that they are going to do to their own communities.
The Bill’s key objectives also include net zero. Again, there is no detail on net zero or how the Government intend to subsidise its delivery. We are being told to just believe—to hope on a whim and a prayer—that the Government will do this, that they will deliver. Let us look at that from a Scottish perspective. Let us look at the Government’s record. As the Minister and, indeed, others in this Chamber know only too well, Scottish renewables projects, which are key and fundamental to reaching net zero, pay the highest grid charges in the entirety of Europe. In the UK—on these islands—renewables projects in the south-east of England get paid to access the national grid, whereas renewables projects in Scotland have to pay to do so.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
That is a vital point that will come forward in the next couple of months, when the Scottish islands could be providing as much as is coming across from some of the European interconnectors at present. On subsidies, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made a good point on enforcement. In part 5, an “interested party” is defined in clause 70(7) as “the Secretary of State” while others are just people who “may be affected”. Should not Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland Ministers be specifically outlined? Or is this something seen as being granted by London and London only, leaving London to make arbitrary decisions on subsidies? My hon. Friend makes the point very powerfully that producing renewable energy in certain parts elicits a subsidy, while in other parts it is penalised.
Stephen Flynn
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes that point incredibly well and I will come on to that clear power grab from the UK Government.
To finalise the point in relation to net zero, the UK Government are telling us that we should trust them. Well, we don’t and we won’t.
The second objective of the Bill I want to touch on briefly relates to empowering devolved Governments—I mean, come on! Empowering devolved Governments. We are going to have a subsidy advice unit set up, a new independent body that will sit within the remit of the Competition and Markets Authority, yet the devolved nations have no say, no input at all whatever, in the role of that organisation or, indeed, who sits on the board. So of course that is not the devolved nations being involved as they should be. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) says it is independent, but of course that is not the case. Was it not the former Prime Minister who had a role in appointments to the board of the CMA, or have I got that incorrect? I think what he is referring to in terms of an independent body is the subsidy advice unit. Of course that is, but it sits within the remit of the CMA—that is the point I am making. The devolved nations have no role in that body. Those are two very separate but important points that am sure he will come to reflect on.
The biggest and most concerning aspect relating to the devolved nations is the fact that when a public body in Scotland or Wales decides that it wants to invest in a project, the UK Secretary of State, irrespective of whether the project relates to devolved areas, can choose to call them in under the remit of the CMA. That is a clear step into devolution.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
We could have a situation where somebody in England decides to set up something on the Welsh border or Scottish border without, seemingly, the powers of Scottish or Welsh Ministers, or even the Scottish Government, to try to remove the attention of Westminster. That is like the Scottish Government setting something up across the North channel almost in direct competition with Northern Ireland, with perhaps Northern Ireland not having the power of equivalence that it appears to be giving to the supremacy at Westminster, which I think is very wrong.
Robin Millar
From the Opposition Benches this afternoon, we are hearing a lot about asymmetry. In particular, we are hearing about a lack of involvement and so on. I will not make any points about sovereignty—I do not wish to go down that road—but I will make a simple observation and perhaps the hon. Gentleman can comment on it. Was that not the case when we were a part of the EU? We were directed into things. We did not have the same control he seems to think that they should have now.
Stephen Flynn
The hon. Member makes his point in his own way, but let me be clear. How can I put this? We do not think that the system that operated within the EU was one that we should have turned our back on. What did we turn our back on it for? Let me answer that briefly, as a slight anecdote: it was for Brexit—the chaos of Brexit. Food shortages, staff shortages, trade barriers, the chaos that we see—
Stephen Flynn
The hon. Member has had his say, and I am sure that he will make further contributions later.
Conservative Members come to this Chamber and tell us that Brexit will solve everything, but of course it has not; it has only made things worse for working people in our society. What we have before us, in no uncertain terms, is a Bill that undermines devolution, following on from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the shared prosperity fund. If they want to protect their Union, they are doing a damned good job of destroying it. Do some more!
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn). I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) in broadly welcoming the Bill’s direction, and indeed its existence; I think that we need a robust subsidy control regime and I am glad that we are putting one in place.
I largely welcome the Government’s central decision to put parameters and rules in place and then trust public authorities to follow them, rather than having a very strict consent regime that would then become slow and cumbersome. I think that that is the right way to go, but it is intriguing to read the Bill and find a control regime that applies only if there is a
“subsidy…of interest or particular interest”,
neither of which terms is defined. At some point, a future Secretary of State could end up with quite a controlling regime by defining “particular interest” as any subsidy of more than half a million pounds, and then we would be back where we were.
It would be interesting to hear what the Minister thinks a “particular interest” might be and what the criteria might be for going into it, so that we know roughly where the line will be drawn, where the discretion for authorities is, and where we will start to expect mandatory or voluntary referral for advance clearance. I do not object to that process, because one of the key things for any subsidy regime is getting certainty so that when a business receives a subsidy, it knows that the rules have been followed, that it is entitled to it, and that there will not be a claim in six months’ or a year’s time that ends up with its having to repay the subsidy and being in worse distress than at the start. Having a regime with clearly drawn lines, so that everyone knows where they are and knows that once something is given it will stick, is hugely welcome. When we consider the Bill in more detail, it would be helpful to know where the line of discretion will be drawn.
The quid pro quo of a regime without intrusive up-front clearance is that we must have transparency on what is being paid, so that everyone knows that it is consistent with the rules and that some public authorities around the country are not misinterpreting them or, heaven forbid, deliberately doing things that they should not be doing. Clearly a risk in any subsidy regime is money being paid out in unlawful ways, so we want to be able to identify that situation pretty quickly.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points. I think that a Bill’s Second Reading is the time to test the arguments. He mentioned transparency, and a colleague of his debated a similar point with the SNP Front-Bench spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn). The crux of it comes back to the state aid point. In the European Union, there were 27 or 28 states and a very defined gamekeeper among all those poachers, namely the European Commission. The concern that I think SNP Members share is who the gamekeeper is and who the poachers are. Are the UK Government playing both gamekeeper and poacher in regards to subsidy? I am testing the arguments in this debate, but over time the Government will need to address the point and be very clear that they are not taking both sides, as poacher and gamekeeper.
Nigel Mills
I think that I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. One attraction that I think the EU system had for the Treasury and occasionally for some politicians was that they could say, “We’d love to give you a grant to save your business, but tragically we’re not allowed to under EU rules,” when actually they did not want to because they knew it was not the right thing to do, so it was handy to have somebody else to blame. I think the Bill sets out that the CMA is the body that will or will not give clearance. It will not be Ministers doing that, so if the hon. Member wants a gamekeeper in this situation, I think it is the CMA.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
But is the CMA not a body of Westminster construction, as opposed to being a body of the Union?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Well, there are many Parliaments in this United Kingdom at the moment, and we know that each and every one should have the same voice. If this is the poacher and gamekeeper Parliament, surely that is a problem for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales—that is the argument that I would postulate.
Nigel Mills
I think it is fair enough for a UK single market to have a single regulator that decides a subsidy regime to ensure that the application of the rules is consistent across the whole of that single market. The hon. Gentleman wants to go back into the EU single market, which has a single regulator which decides things across the whole of that its single market. He does not seem to accept that the EU single market should have the same arrangement.
John Penrose
May I strengthen my hon. Friend’s point by saying that whatever people’s views of the CMA may be, it is pretty well respected as being a robustly politically independent organisation, no matter who is in government?
Nigel Mills
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I think we should move on from this point before we lengthen the debate into something that we do not want.
As I was saying, a transparency regime enabling us to see promptly what is being paid to whom and for what reason, and what the expected outcomes are, is of key importance. I agree with what my hon. Friend was saying earlier: a regime in which we have to wait six months for a disclosure, and then only of amounts over half a million pounds, has the wrong balance. I think that is where we end up with concern over subsidies, and scandals brewing, and then a lurch back towards more of a clearance regime. I urge the Government to rethink those points.
We are not expecting public authorities to be handing out huge numbers of subsidies after half an hour’s consideration. The rules that we are introducing are fairly strict. There will have to be some careful consideration of any proposed subsidies to ensure that those rules have been met, and there are processes for checking that the person who is being paid has not already exceeded a certain threshold. It is not a half-hour, quick and dirty process; there is plenty of time to gather the information that is needed to declare the subsidy, which can then, pretty promptly, be put on to what I suspect will be a simple database form that the CMA, or whoever, will put in place. I do not think it is an intrusive burden to have to say, “Here is what we gave to whom and why.”
I should add that I would like it to be possible to see the identity of the beneficial owner of the entity that has received the subsidy on the database, so that we can see who is really benefiting, rather than seeing some obscure, lower-down subsidiary name, which would make it not very easy to trace by going through the whole system who has been getting what from different public authorities.
Let me suggest as a comparison the furlough scheme, which is essentially a subsidy being given to businesses to pay their employees’ wages. We have published the names, in a range of bands starting with £1 to £10,000, of employers who have received that subsidy during the pandemic. I think that if we can publicise the details of employers who have received up to £10,000, we can justify publishing the name of anyone who has received a subsidy that has gone through a due process, down to a much lower level than £500,000, without its being unduly damaging to their commercial confidential interests. I think that someone involved in the process of asking for money from the taxpayer should accept and welcome that transparency. There should be nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to hide: if that money is needed for a good purpose, there is no reason why we should not know about it. I urge the Government to make some changes in that regard.
I was intrigued by the remarks about the way in which taxation policy can elide with the subsidy regime. There are quite a few cut-outs for taxation situations which I guess make sense, but I think there could be a role here. If we are giving individual taxpayers very generous tax deals, letting them off liabilities that they may owe for reasons that may not necessarily be entirely technically robust—as people have feared before—I see no reason why those should not count as subsidies and therefore be published through this regime, in order to get around that horrible situation in which we know that deals are being done but we do not know who the beneficiaries are. I think that it would be an interesting legal challenge to establish whether they are caught by these rules.
My final remark—I think—concerns the exclusion of subsidies for purposes of national security. I have absolutely no objection in principle to our being unable to publish everything that is spent in relation to national security, but those words—
“for the purpose of safeguarding national security”—
constitute a very broad definition. We have hit a problem with the freedom of information rules in this regard. Some authorities have an incredibly broad interpretation of what that means. I think it was the West Yorkshire fire and rescue service that would not publish a response to an FOI request about the vehicles it had bought in case someone could somehow clone them and thus get into its premises. I hope that the Government are not expecting to have such a ridiculously broad definition of national security that we cannot in any circumstances see the subsidy given to any defence company, or police authority, or fire and rescue authority. Given that energy security is probably a national security issue, presumably no energy subsidy could be published. I suspect that some creative people around the country could find all manner of ways of making the broad definition “for the purposes of national security” exempt almost anything from these rules. I hope that we can be clear in Committee about the sort of things we think we should not publish, and about where the line should be drawn as to what we can see. If we have too many exemptions from these rules, we will end up weakening confidence in the system. We could end up with scandals that could lurch us away from the fast-moving, flexible system that the Government want in order to get aid where it is needed fast. We could end up back in a cumbersome, slow and bureaucratic system to try to avoid the scandals that we could see from a lack of transparency.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is great to hear the thoughtful contributions from that Tory Bench, although not from the Treasury Bench, I hasten to add. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and I have spoken in many debates together, and I always appreciate his forensic assessments of the details in the Bills before us. I hope that he will be on the Committee, and I hope that I will be too.
First off, I want to ask a couple of questions about what the Secretary of State said, because I am immensely confused by a couple of the things that he said. First, he said that the devolved Administrations were broadly happy with the Bill. If they are broadly happy, why have the Welsh Government said that they object to five of the six parts of the Bill? One out of six does not equate to “broadly happy”. In fact, I get the impression that they really do not like it and are not happy about it.
We have not seen what the Scottish Government are saying about the legislative consent motion, but I cannot imagine that they will be terribly happy with the power grab that is occurring as a result of the Bill. So I am quite confused by what the Secretary of State said. Does he mean that the devolved Administrations are broadly happy with having a state aid regime? Does he mean that they are broadly happy with the detail of the Subsidy Control Bill? I do not know. I do not understand what he is saying, because it does not seem to be coherent with what the Welsh Government have said in public about this.
The other thing that I am really confused about is what the Secretary of State said about the EU state aid provisions no longer applying to Northern Ireland. I thought he said something about article 21 of the Northern Ireland protocol, but maybe he meant article 16. I am not sure what he meant. In terms of the planned changes to state aid application in Northern Ireland, he seemed to be saying that the new subsidy control regime would apply there and that the UK Government were seeking some sort of change to an article in order to ensure that that happened. I am not aware of any publicity around the UK Government asking the EU for a change, but if that has happened, why have we not heard about it?
Could we please have a bit more information on this? We have the trade and co-operation agreement and we have the Northern Ireland protocol, but how do the UK Government expect these measures to apply in Northern Ireland without us breaking either the agreement or the protocol? That does not make sense. If the Secretary of State was making that important an announcement, you would think he would do it in a ministerial statement rather than as an aside during the Second Reading of this Bill. I would be really keen to hear a bit more information about what this actually means.
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the confusion that has been raised. Does she agree that it is important that the Government clarify what they are suggesting has changed in relation to article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol and whether it has been dropped on the basis of this Bill? Should they not also tell us whether their proposal has been negotiated with the EU, and what the status of those discussions and any agreement might be?
Kirsty Blackman
Absolutely. If we as a country can suddenly renege on our international obligations and agreements, why cannot Scotland hold an independence referendum next week? The UK has agreed to these agreements and it would be great, when the Minister speaks at the end of the debate, if he could explain exactly what is going on. This is serious enough for a Minister to be making a separate statement to the House, because it is such an important matter for the people of the UK and particularly for the people of Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) spoke eloquently about the levelling-up agenda, and I agree that the red wall Tories elected in the north of England should be jumping up and down about this—we are jumping up and down about it, as the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) suggested—because it explicitly excludes us from doing anything that may disadvantage any other area of the UK. In schedule 1, principle F says:
“Subsidies should be designed to achieve their specific policy objective while minimising any negative effects on competition or investment within the United Kingdom.”
And principle G says:
“Subsidies’ beneficial effects…should outweigh any negative effects, including in particular negative effects on competition or investment within the United Kingdom; international trade or investment.”
That reference to international trade or investment confuses me.
The principles try to level the playing field across the UK, so there can be a subsidy in Manchester only if a person in the south of England would not move their company as a result.
Sammy Wilson
For balance, does the hon. Lady accept that principle A says:
“Subsidies should pursue a specific policy objective in order to remedy an identified market failure”?
If there is market failure and certain regions of the United Kingdom are disadvantaged because of their distance, history, lack of skills, lack of resources or whatever it happens to be, principle A allows subsidies to be used for levelling up.
Kirsty Blackman
Principle F rejects that, so which one has primacy? Which one is the most important? If they directly disagree with each other, is it more important that we can do what is said in principle A or is it more important that we can do what is said in principle F?
I think the subsidy regime should be used in the same way as the EU state aid regime, which focuses on regions that need additional support. Whatever this Conservative Government say—we will not believe them anyway, given the amount of lies we have been told—it is not the case that this regime assists levelling up; it does the opposite. If they want to assist levelling up, they should design a regime that ensures different areas can have different subsidy regimes that benefit their local area even though they may disadvantage other areas.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady may have identified this herself already, but freeports, for example, allow businesses to relocate and benefit from different taxation regimes. Such businesses are treated more beneficially in how they operate and in their cost of operation. Does she accept that freeports do exactly what she is setting out?
Kirsty Blackman
Freeports are not covered by the subsidy regime we are talking about today. They are a separate thing. I can say from the Back Benches that I am not particularly keen on freeports, but the idea is that there is a wall around the port—the guidance specifically says that there has to be a physical barrier around the area—and there is a different taxation regime within that wall. I am yet to be convinced of the economic benefits that will come as a result.
We hope to have green ports in Scotland, and the failure of the UK Government to agree that we can pay the real living wage and focus on net zero within those green ports means that the freeport system, as it stands, is not nearly as advantageous as it could or should be. Even though the freeport system is set up to encourage such things, I have not seen evidence that it will actually do so, particularly given the rejection of the key principles we want to put in place.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
It is unclear that the UK Government have a strategy to replace the EU’s successful regional structural funding for Wales, Northern Ireland and many parts of the highlands in Scotland. Such funding and state aid go hand in hand, and they are seen as different things. Indeed, the freeports are seen as a different thing. There needs to be something else to go with this for areas of the UK that are disadvantaged by policy set in the south-east of England for the south-east of England.
Kirsty Blackman
Absolutely. We need to replicate the good things we had in the EU, the things that supported different areas. A system has been put in place to ensure that different parliamentary constituencies can get money from the UK Government, but it is super-interesting that the constituencies the Government have chosen to put at the top of the list are those constituencies represented by Conservative MPs, rather than the constituencies with the highest levels of deprivation. The difference is dramatic.
It is hugely concerning that, if the UK Government are left to do so much in this Bill by guidance, as set out in clause 79, we are going to have a situation where the Secretary of State will have significant control and flexibility without even having to come through door of this House. The Bill says that the Secretary of State is going to issue guidance about
“the practical application of—
(a) the subsidy control principles;
(b) the energy and environment principles;
(c) the subsidy control requirements in Chapters 2 and 3”.
I am clear that there needs to be detailed guidance, but we should be at the stage where we are scrutinising it. When we come to the evidence sessions in Committee, the people before us should be able to talk about the guidance. I get that some of the regulations are going to be made by the affirmative resolution and some by the negative resolution, but my major concern is not those that are going to be made by resolutions in this House; it is those that are going to be made by guidance.
Let us we look in detail at some of the stuff in this Bill. Schedule 2 says:
“Subsidies in relation to energy and environment shall be aimed at and incentivise the beneficiary in—
(a) delivering a secure, affordable and sustainable energy system and a well-functioning and competitive energy market, or
(b) increasing the level of environmental protection compared to the level that would be achieved in the absence of the subsidy.”
I am keen to know what “environmental protection” means. What does it mean? It is not in there. We do not know what it means because we have not seen the guidance that the Secretary of State is going to be allowed to produce on their own without running it past this House.
The same applies in respect of
“a secure, affordable and sustainable energy system and a well-functioning and competitive energy market”.
Does that mean a well-functioning and competitive energy market for those people who buy and sell energy, or for the consumer? Does it mean for the person who is being hit by those higher fuel bills or for the people trading gas on a daily basis? I do not know what it means because we do not have that information. If the Government were willing to provide us with the guidance, and we had access to it and seen it, we would be able to ask questions and comment on the specificity of the guidance. When we have experts come before the Committee, we would be able to hear their expert opinion on it, but we cannot, because we do not have the guidance. It is really unfortunate that, on Second Reading, when we are deciding whether or not the Bill should go forward, we have not got the information we need in order to do that.
I want to make a couple more points about energy. One of my colleagues mentioned the transition charges. The subsidy regime that is being set up says, “We can’t have one part of the UK advantaged over another part of it.” However, it also says, “No subsidy can negatively affect interconnectors.” So we will still have a situation where energy from the EU is allowed to come into the UK—the companies are not paying any charges for using our network—yet people who have wind farms in Scotland are paying £5.50 per unit of energy. And those in Wales are being paid £2.80 per unit of energy. That system was created when fuel was driven around in vans and had to be driven to places that then used the power. One of my colleagues said that there is an incredible level of disinterest among those on the Government Benches about dealing with transmission charges. I appreciate that some of them have considered it, but a Minister has not stood up to say, “You are right. This is a travesty and we need to fix it.” We would really like a commitment on that, particularly if this Bill is going to give protection to interconnectors but no protection to those wind farms in the north of Scotland that are being charged an absolute fortune.
I want to talk about the Labour party’s position on the Bill, as I am really disappointed that it is not willing to vote against it. It is important for it to do that. We are going to vote against it. I am on the left. I appreciate all the things that the Labour party has done in the past, but I have spent six years getting increasingly frustrated by the failure of the Labour party to oppose this Tory Government and to stand up even for the Welsh Government at this point. This is really unfortunate. I do not understand at all why the Labour party is not voting against this tonight. We are voting against it. I am not going to support this Bill, as I do not think it should get its Second Reading. I say that for reasons of the power grab, the massive inadequacies in the Bill and the fact it is going to do the opposite of levelling up—it is going to entrench the inequality we already have.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
I welcome the Bill, particularly as a Welsh Member of Parliament, because it will provide the framework for a new, UK-wide subsidy control regime. This will, for the first time, enable authorities, including the devolved Administrations and local authorities, to deliver bespoke subsidies that are tailored to local needs. I want to reinforce that point because it has been a key part of the discussion, in reference to the EU subsidy areas. In my opinion, those regions were not targeted enough. Large parts of Wales were not included in them, despite having areas of deprivation. The Bill will apply to the parts of Wales where need is greatest.
The Bill is also essential—the UK internal market is essential to our prosperity. Trade with the rest of the UK is worth more than trade with the rest of the world combined to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is especially the case in Wales, where Welsh businesses purchase more from the rest of the UK than from Welsh businesses plus the rest of the world.
The Bill promotes accountability through a standardised, UK-wide database. Transparency and simple comparison will provide accountability across the UK. It must be stressed that reporting by the devolved Administrations is often absent or uses different criteria, which prevent like-for-like comparisons. For example, the Welsh Government do not publish waiting list times for all NHS procedures, unlike other parts of the UK.
The Bill promotes the Government’s levelling-up objectives. The UK is built on local communities, not just Belfast, Edinburgh, Cardiff and London. Building up and streamlining local authorities’ partnership with the UK Government are key to strengthening the Union. Speaking as a Welsh Member of Parliament, I have to say that the Welsh Government are not the easiest organisation to deal with for those living in north Wales and looking for Government help. Their focus is very much on south Wales. The message from the debate that giving money and subsidy control to the Welsh Government will mean that money is spread across the Principality is incorrect. I was interested by the remarks of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). He should be fair and recognise that Plaid Cymru is riding two horses in negotiating an agreement with the Welsh Government in Cardiff, yet criticising the Welsh Labour party while here. Plaid Cymru Members need to recognise that they cannot have it both ways.
The Bill benefits the devolved Administrations, too. That message has not come across strongly enough in the debate. It lowers costs and streamlines decision making, including for the devolved Administrations. Streamlined subsidy administration ensures that the devolved Administrations can roll out their own regimes at lower cost and greater speed. The UK internal market competition distortion principle will protect the devolved Administrations and the English regions from being pushed into competition spirals with neighbouring authorities.
I am pleased to back the Government on the Bill, which takes back control from the EU, allows us to deliver on the British people’s priorities, strengthens the Union and gives confidence and certainty to businesses and investors. It will enable local authorities across the UK to play an equal role, rather than everything always being put in the centre, in London and in the devolved Administrations. We need to enable the whole country, at a local level, to become involved and provide the dynamic to create a better life for all our citizens.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I thank the Minister for his engagement on the Bill; it was useful to discuss the seven principles in detail beforehand. We welcome the fact that the Bill has been introduced, that there is a proposal to replace the EU subsidy regime and that the Government are making provision for it, but I put it to the Government that what is in the Bill is really only half of what we need if we are to have an effective and adequate UK subsidy regime.
The first thing missing relates not so much to what is in the Bill but what should stand alongside it: an effective industrial strategy. The Bill makes it clear that the purpose of the regime is to guide the awarding of grants for strategic purposes, but we do not know what the strategy looks like because we do not have an industrial strategy that identifies our key sectors and industries. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) put it so succinctly, we are not even entirely sure which regions of the UK we most want to support. Any subsidy regime that is not accompanied by a clear industrial strategy is really only half the picture, because we just do not know where the public support might best be directed.
As a number of Members have already said—I defer in particular to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and the points he made—the key thing missing from the Bill is transparency. What subsidies will be paid to whom? Without that level of transparency, we will have no real scrutiny of the decisions made. Quite apart from all the other related points that have been made, the key thing for me is how we can measure the value or impact of subsidies if we do not have a clear idea of exactly what subsidies are being paid to whom and for what purpose. How can we be certain that those subsidies reach the right people, organisations, regions and sectors, and that they provide the kind of targeted support that we want? Without clarity and transparency, we cannot properly evaluate what the taxpayer subsidises.
The point about the scrutiny of individual subsidy decisions has been made a number of times. There has been much discussion about the CMA’s role, but it strikes me that although the CMA will have a role to play in scrutiny, it will have no enforcement role. It is probably right that the CMA will be consulted not on every particular subsidy but just on those that are of interest, but for it to be asked to look at subsidies of interest but have no enforcement role seems to me to be a bit of a waste of time. It also highlights the fact that no overall independent body will assess the subsidy regime and whether subsidies have been awarded according to the principles outlined in the Bill. Who will hold the various local authorities to account for ensuring that the principles have been adhered to? There does not seem to be a role for any independent body.
Without an industrial strategy, clear data on which bids are successful and an independent body to provide guidance, how much faith can individual businesses, or their lenders or investors, have in their likelihood of success? How can confidence be built among investors who bid for a subsidy? How can they assess their likelihood of success? The Bill will lead to inefficiency in the system, because it will discourage businesses that might have had a good chance of getting a subsidy if only they had had all the information available when making their bid, and the available subsidies will perhaps then be given to businesses that do not have such a good case.
I refer again to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, who used the term “unproductive”. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I care as deeply as any other Member in this place that we get good value for taxpayers’ money. It seems to me that without clarity, guidance or an overarching industrial strategy, there is a real danger that subsidies will be awarded behind closed doors, without clarity. That would make for the inefficient allocation of resources, which we all want to avoid.
The only restraint on subsidies that this legislation allows for is the threat of legal action by competitors who might have missed out. Without that clear information about who is getting a subsidy and what for, it seems the information simply is not going to be available for those legal challenges to be mounted. How will affected businesses know that they have been disadvantaged and how will they be able to gather sufficient information to mount an effective legal challenge? None the less, that legal challenge appears to be the only effective restraint on how subsidies are handed out.
Through this Bill, the Government seem to have constructed a regime that will enable secret payments without scrutiny or challenge. It does not provide enough of a route to challenge or anyone to hold to account in order to ensure that the principles are being observed. To be honest, it surprises me that this Government, who already have a reputation for cronyism, would not take greater care to ensure that those perceptions were not perpetuated.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to listen to the various arguments on both sides of the House.
I am a committed free marketeer and have been in business for most of my life, and I do not think that I have ever accepted a Government subsidy—other than perhaps last year under the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme. I would be interested if the Minister could reflect on whether that would qualify under this legislation. I do not really believe in subsidies, but a world without subsidies requires a perfect free market and we do not have a perfect free market. We do not have the perfect consumer, the perfect market competition or the perfect provision of small and medium-sized enterprise finance. At times, a Government absolutely need to step in and provide subsidies where there is market failure, so I welcome this legislation and the vast majority of its provisions.
Stephen Flynn
Does the hon. Member think that the Government, under these new terms, will provide more subsidies than they did under EU state aid, or the opposite?
Kevin Hollinrake
I know that is the hon. Member’s question, but I think it is the wrong question. For me, the key question is whether the subsidy is going to spend taxpayers’ money well. We can claim success not just by giving more money away than was wasted, but when the taxpayers’ money that is used proves fruitful. We should not be disappointed that we have had one of the lower subsidy levels of the countries compared today. We should be proud of believing that our businesses should stand on their own two feet. Nevertheless, I do support on occasion the Government and other public authorities providing subsidies in certain areas and for certain things.
I welcome the Bill. I know that the Minister will ensure that it receives good scrutiny and passes through its different stages. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), in that my key point is about having a greater level of scrutiny and transparency. The No. 1 reason for transparency is that, as my hon. Friend said, Governments of all shades are pretty poor at picking winners, so it is important that Governments and public authorities are held to account for their decisions to grant subsidies, which are taxpayers’ money and must therefore be spent well.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) made an important point about cronyism. Some of the claims of cronyism in procurement that we have heard today are unsubstantiated and have been shown to be inaccurate in the National Audit Office report. People who claim otherwise bring shame on every single Member of this House; it is a flawed method of political point scoring that is deeply unhelpful. The National Audit Office clearly said that Ministers were not involved in procurement decisions.
Nevertheless, I believe in scrutiny and complete transparency, particularly when significant amounts of money—up to half a million pounds in some schemes, as we can see from the legislation—can be handed out by a local authority or devolved region, without scrutiny. Some local authorities have better reputations than others when it comes to spending money, so it is really important that we can see exactly what local authorities and devolved Administrations are doing. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) brought up this point. If we do not see a level of scrutiny, different parts of the country could try to use different means of creating some advantage, or indeed try to raise grievances, which is something that we hear not too infrequently in this place.
I absolutely support the proposal to reduce the threshold for scrutiny and transparency from the current level of £500,000, or £315,000 for cumulative subsidies outside a scheme, to a much lower level of £500. As a businessperson myself—I declare an interest—I would have no objection to declaring any taxpayers’ money we had received in our business. I think the only time we have ever received it was through the furlough scheme and the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, which we returned without drawing on it. If we are taking taxpayers’ money, we should be accountable for it, whatever level it is at. I think the only objection that could be raised to a much lower limit would be creating red tape, but according to the research I have seen, there is a minimal amount of red tape and a minimal amount of cost—about £20,000. This simplifies matters in many areas.
In all the different cases where things have gone wrong—I deal with lots of cases of fraud and malpractice in all kinds of different financial markets—the key element of scrutiny and transparency in identifying wrongdoing has usually come from members of the public, who are perhaps closer to the ground than our regulators. If the database is made fully public, we are more likely to pick up on wrongdoing. Members of the public, and members of the press, do a fantastic job in tracking down this kind of wrongdoing.
I urge the Government to look at the threshold and bring it down to a much lower level. Aside from that, I welcome the Bill and look forward to the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
In principle, we welcome this Bill. First, it represents an opportunity for us to introduce subsidy control regimes that are specific to the United Kingdom and are not influenced by Brussels and the wider European interest, hence sometimes actually detrimental to our own country. It is an important part of the whole Brexit process that we have this independence.
Secondly, it is important that we have a nationally controlled regime. As one who speaks from a region of the United Kingdom, of course I want an even playing field when it comes to the application of subsidies. Some regions are richer than others and will therefore have more money to be put into subsidies than others. Some areas may have more political influence. That is partly why I find some of the objections raised by Opposition Members very odd. For example, a Minister in central Government could introduce subsidies for constituencies in a way that is beneficial to the electoral interests of his own party—the governing party—and we need a control regime that enables that kind of decision to be challenged.
My only concern about the Bill—perhaps the Minister will clarify this later; it has been raised by Members already—is that the challenge function seems to be limited to either the Secretary of State or to interested persons. As far as I can see in any definitions that have been given in the Bill, interested persons would not include Ministers from any of the devolved Parliaments or Assemblies in the United Kingdom. In fact, the only such definition is in clause 8, which refers to businesses and enterprises. The Minister needs to clarify this. If he wants to argue that this is a robust control regime, then the ability to make referrals must not just rest with the Secretary of State. It must also rest with devolved Administrations, who have interests in how subsidies may be used, particularly by central Government Departments or Ministers. Others may want the challenge function so that they can make mischief. If the Minister is serious about saying that we want to have an effective UK-wide regime, it must be clear that the function is available to all interested parties across the UK.
I come specifically to the Northern Ireland issue. Of course, in Northern Ireland the control of subsidies will not be totally under the Competition and Markets Authority or the tribunals. We will operate a dual regime under the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. On state aid and its controls, it is quite clear:
“The provisions of Union law listed in Annex 5”—
a whole list of EU rules is there—
“shall apply to the United Kingdom, including with regard to measures supporting the production of and trade in agricultural products…in respect of measures which affect that trade between Northern Ireland and the Union which is subject to this Protocol.”
The Secretary of State said in answer to the Opposition spokesperson and, I think, the Scottish National party representative that, as far as the Government are concerned, it is clear that Northern Ireland is covered by the Bill, but the only way in which Northern Ireland can be totally within its provisions is through the removal of article 10.
I know it is a lengthy Bill, but I have read through it and I do not find any reference to article 10 being altered, removed or changed. Perhaps the Minister can point that out to us later on. I would welcome that, by the way; in fact, I would be overjoyed, and people in Northern Ireland would be overjoyed if that is hidden somewhere in the Bill in words that I do not understand, have not spotted or whatever. If it is there, please point it out. There will be great rejoicing in Northern Ireland as a result.
Kirsty Blackman
Even if that were in the Bill, I am concerned that it is not in the competence of this place to change that unilaterally without having a discussion with the European Union.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Member made that point, and I was not sure whether she was supportive of the withdrawal of article 10 or appalled at the prospect because the EU opposes it. The one thing I did notice, however, was that she was appalled that there should be any interference in the role of the Government in Scotland to make subsidy decisions. If that is the case, she should be equally appalled for policy makers in Northern Ireland and welcome any unilateral decision by the Government here at Westminster to give them the same freedom.
Kirsty Blackman
I honestly do not have a view on whether it is a good or bad thing. I am just utterly confused, because I do not think that the Government have the power to do it. I want to know what they mean so that I can work out whether I oppose it or not. I do not know what they are saying.
Sammy Wilson
Of course, the Government have the power to do it under article 16 where it is deemed that provisions in the withdrawal agreement are damaging economically to Northern Ireland. I cannot think of anything more damaging to Northern Ireland than a subsidy regime that applies in the rest of the United Kingdom but which can be stopped from applying in Northern Ireland.
Let me give some examples of how conflict between the dual systems could operate. One of the principles outlined in schedule 1 is that subsidies should be proportionate—there is no fixed percentage; it is simply that they be proportionate—but under the EEA-EU state aid regime, subsidies cannot be more than 50%. For example, if a subsidy is made available to a firm in Scotland that could equally be looking at Northern Ireland, Scotland would have the advantage of saying that it is so important to Scotland and fits in with its objectives that it will give it a subsidy equal to 70%—that may even be accepted under the control regime in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, Northern Ireland would be excluded from seeking to attract that firm on the basis that the EU state aid rules say it cannot go over 50%. That is one way in which the dual system is going to be a disadvantage.
Another example is that the EU refuses to allow state aid to be given where it is simply for expansion, but under the principles outlined in schedule 1, a subsidy of that nature could be given in the rest of the United Kingdom. We could find that a subsidy complies with the control regime in GB, but does not comply with EU state aid rules in Northern Ireland, so placing Northern Ireland at a disadvantage.
On the EU state rules—and the Secretary of State said it—one of the reasons for bringing forward our own control system is that it can be more flexible and quicker. In fact, I think he said that a decision could be made within 30 days, but under EU state aid rules, there has to be a standstill period that can last up to a year. The Secretary of State said that in the House today. Again, when it comes to attracting businesses by using subsidies in Northern Ireland—even if we could match the subsidy available in England, Scotland and Wales, or wherever else somebody is trying to attract the firm—the slowness of the process, imposed by the fact that we are subject not only to the control regime in the rest of the United Kingdom, but to EU state aid rules, could mean that we find that a firm simply says, “Well, we can get a decision quicker in England, Scotland or Wales, and that is where we are going”, and Northern Ireland would be disadvantaged.
That is one of the reasons why no fiddling about with regulations is going to make a difference here. If Northern Ireland still remains firmly under article 10 of the withdrawal agreement, state aid rules apply there and the dual system has to apply there, then this is not a case, as someone has said, of trying to control the subsidy race, because Northern Ireland cannot even enter the race. We will be spectators of the race, stopped from entering it by the provisions of article 10 and the requirement for Northern Ireland to remain under the state aid rules.
Lest people think that this is just an issue for Northern Ireland—they may say, “Well, tough! That was what happened with Brexit.”—let me say that this is the elephant in the room and the issue has not been addressed in this Bill. Those state aid rules apply to trade between Northern Ireland and the Union, but any subsidies to a firm that operates through Northern Ireland into the EU, even though it is based in England, Scotland or Wales—or might even trade into the EU through Northern Ireland—will also be caught up in this.
The issue of the reach of the state aid rules has not been addressed in this Bill, and it is not just an academic argument. It is not even just for subsidies that may be given to firms in England, Scotland or Wales; this can also affect the international trade deals that the Government do with the rest of the world.
For example, British Sugar has challenged the deal made by the Secretary of State that allows 250,000 tonnes of sugar cane into the United Kingdom tariff free. That has been challenged by British Sugar on the basis that it represents unfair competition in the European market. British Sugar sells on the European market. It uses sugar beet, and tariff-free sugar cane would give Tate & Lyle an advantage. That is being challenged in the courts, and article 10 has been cited. If we are to ensure that a subsidy control regime does not disadvantage one part of the United Kingdom, or catch some of the subsidies that may be made available to firms located in other parts of the United Kingdom, rather than in Northern Ireland, article 10 is all-important. It is important for the Minister to provide clarification on that.
I have spoken to officials in the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. They have said—it is quite clear why—that they are finding it difficult to get information about how this scheme will work. So much of the Bill depends on new regulations being made. The general headlines are there, but the regulations need to be made. For example, what is an interested party, and will the Minister regulate to widen the scope of that? What about guidance for the subsidy and the person of interest, or about subsidies of particular interest? We do not know which subsidies are likely to be of particular interest, but that will be made by regulation. The Bill is peppered throughout with indications that such things will be clarified by regulations from the Minister, and that is important when it comes to the operation of subsidy control. We are dealing with the Bill, yet we are blind to some of the issues that need to be addressed.
Another issue is the time allowed for appeal or challenge, which is 30 days. I do not want the same long drawn-out process that the EU has, but 30 days in which the subsidy is registered or placed on a database is particularly short. Why has that period been selected, especially since getting information together for such a challenge might be that much more difficult? Lastly, the tribunal has significant powers, but it is how those powers will be used that is important. When the Bill comes to Committee, it is important that many of these issues are addressed.
From a Northern Ireland perspective, I hope that the promise made from the Dispatch Box is correct. If it is, I would love to see where that is being delivered in the Bill. If not, I would say that the Bill does not deal with some of the factors that have caused the greatest distortion of trade when it comes to the application of subsidies, namely a dual regime in Northern Ireland—a regime that allows the European Court of Justice to make those decisions. The promise made by the Minister in his opening speech that the Bill represents the freedoms we have thanks to Brexit is not quite true. The Bill still leaves a significant foothold in the United Kingdom for Brussels and the European Court of Justice when making final decisions about subsidies that apply in Northern Ireland, or about subsidies that are given to firms in England, Scotland or Wales, but that may fall under the EU state aid regime because, through their trading in Northern Ireland, they impact on the European market.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me say that it would appear that the Division bell is not operating properly in Speaker’s Court, and that those in the offices in that part of the Palace might not hear the bell properly. I hope hon. Members will not rely entirely on hearing the Division bell to know that there is a Division taking place. It is not unusual for there to be a Division. There may or may not be one when we conclude this debate, but it is not unusual that there should be a Division when we have Second Reading of a Bill.
For new Members who have not quite got it yet, if a Division takes place, it will take place immediately after the concluding speech by the Minister. In this case, the Minister is the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), so if anyone is in any doubt as to when a Division might take place, if there is one, it will be after they see the hon. Gentleman’s name on the Annunciator. If they watch out for that, it will not matter that they cannot hear the Division bell, because they will know that a Division is likely, and on their monitor it will say “Division”.
I hope that that will help to prompt people to know that a Division might take place. I have no idea when that might be. I can only tell hon. Members that it will be at 7 o’clock at the latest; it depends on how long the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam speaks at the Dispatch Box. But first, we have Robin Millar.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sense a restlessness among colleagues, so my comments will be brief, and the moment we are all waiting for, when the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), gets to his feet, will be upon us shortly.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, and it is only right and proper that UK law and a UK subsidy regime must prevail in that part of the United Kingdom. I hope, indeed, that they will be rejoicing on the streets. My understanding is that the Government have, in effect, made it clear that article 10 of the protocol is redundant, given that the subsequent trade and co-operation agreement establishes a framework of mutual recognition of state aid rules, with which the Bill complies. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that in his remarks.
I want to make a point about how the Bill supports devolution. We have heard Opposition Members refer—not universally, but on a couple of occasions—to how the Bill damages devolution. There is much that could be said about the gaps between the way the world is viewed by Opposition Members and the way it is viewed by Government Members, but one such gap has come through during this debate in the constant references to things that are missing. I suggest that that gap indicates different ways of looking at things: while Government Members are happy to set down principles within which business can flourish and prosper, it seems to me from the comments made today that Opposition Members are looking for a high degree of prescription about what can and cannot be done. Those are different ways of looking at the world.
Let me make it clear that I am a supporter of the principles behind devolution. I want to draw out three principles in particular: local leadership, broader accountability and shared prosperity. Sadly, the first, local leadership, has never really been fully realised in north Wales. To us, devolution has led to decision-making powers flowing south to Cardiff bay. In Scotland, too, we have seen a centralisation of powers, with decision-making powers drawn from the regions to Holyrood and reserved to the Government there.
As just one example—I could give many—we saw that in the disbursal of EU funds. Only 9% of EU funds spent in Wales made it as far as local authorities for decision making; the majority were decided on and spent from Cardiff bay. England has its own problems and challenges in this area, but, by contrast, the figure in England was 36%: four times as much money and decision making flowed out into the local authorities and the regions from Westminster. That is a telling tale, because the sense in north Wales is still that Cardiff is distant and remote—accusations that are typically laid against this place. The Bill will help to address that and give local authorities and even the devolved Administrations freedom to set up targeted, effective and practical schemes in their area.
I must say, though, that something has changed in the air in north Wales since the arrival of this Government in Westminster. The sense of alienation is starting to evaporate. Those who know the area of the world I am talking about will know that in the Conwy valley and Aberconwy, the morning mists start to roll down the valley at this time of year, and they are starting to evaporate now thanks to the Government’s involvement.
There is much that I could say about how the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 has changed things, but I will not, for reasons of time. I will say, though, that the prospect of inbound UK Government funds has rapidly mobilised my own council, Conwy County Borough Council. It is engaging with communities and leaders on their thoughts and plans for delivering change, and I am grateful for the support and engagement of its leader, Councillor Charlie McCoubrey, and the economy portfolio holder, Councillor Louise Emery. For my part, I have been meeting local councils, organisations, residents and business leaders in the community to seek their thoughts and advice, and there is no shortage of them.
The second principle that I would like to draw attention to is accountability. I welcome the universal reporting database being introduced through clause 33. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) gave a tour de force on the benefits of the transparency that it will bring and even prescribed fresh air and sunshine to bring benefits to businesses.
The different reporting systems that exist in different parts of the UK have often clouded transparency and obscured comparisons. Wales and Scotland have different reporting regimes in many different areas—we have heard reference to patient waiting lists—and during the pandemic we have seen different local responses only causing further confusion. Key universal systems avoid such inconsistency, and the database provided for in the Bill will be one of those. They allow for public transparency and comparable information about how money is being spent in the UK.
Stephen Flynn
I thank the hon. Member. He said at the start of his speech that he respected devolution and believed in the principles of devolution, yet throughout his speech all he has done is criticise it, to the point where he is now criticising local authorities in Scotland. Far be it from me to defend a Tory-led local authority in Aberdeen, but why is he criticising local authorities, and how does that marry with his support for devolution?
Robin Millar
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am not sure what he was listening to. Not one word of criticism of local authorities has passed my lips. I was explicit in starting my speech by addressing the principles of devolution. I suspect that he may be confusing the principles of it with the practice of it that he sees in Scotland. Accountability is important, and it has been allowed to slip, but I believe that the Bill addresses that by supporting and encouraging it.
The third and final principle that I want to mention is shared prosperity, which the Bill will support. Aberconwy has seen an impressive recovery from the pandemic, and according to some reports Llandudno has experienced the fastest recovery of any town in the UK. I pay tribute to those who are working so hard in their businesses, from Glenn Evans and his team at the Royal Oak in Betws-y-Coed to Clinton and his team at the Blend coffee shop on Clonmel Street in Llandudno. Right across Aberconwy, it is people like them who make that economic recovery a reality. We owe them a debt of thanks and gratitude for their hard work—it is not we in this place but they who make the difference, and I am grateful to them for it. The prospect of additional funds and subsidies coming their way—coming our way, into Aberconwy, directed by local leaders and businesses—provides the potential to capitalise on that endeavour, help economic recovery and bring forward the promise of a locally delivered prosperous future.
Of course, there is much to do. Other principles set out in part 2 of the Bill ensure that our internal market operates freely and without hindrance, avoiding the subsidy race that has already been referenced between different parts of the UK. Other parts of the Bill reduce bureaucracy and—again, I make this point—enable decision making by devolved Administrations in a targeted and effective way, faster and in a way that they could never do before.
Finally, I support the Government’s hopes for the Bill that it will enable a thriving competitive economy and, in north Wales, lead to the kind of investment that we want to see in renewable energy, road, rail and broadband connectivity, and, I hope, even a freeport. It is because I believe the Bill delivers on the principles of devolution and makes possible a prosperous future in Aberconwy that I will be voting in support of its Second Reading.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate, which in general has been a very considered and well-informed debate with some excellent contributions. We heard from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) about the many gaps in the Bill, while the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) highlighted concerns over the Northern Ireland protocol, which I will also mention in my contribution. Even the contributions from the Government Benches highlighted some of the issues and challenges with the Bill.
I start by echoing the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) in her excellent contribution at the start of the debate regarding the lack of female representation on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ministerial team. It is disappointing not to see balanced leadership, particularly in a Department working on such critical issues as increasing diversity in science, technology, engineering and maths and increasing start-up businesses among female entrepreneurs.
We recognise the need for legislation in the area of subsidy control to meet our commitments under the trade and co-operation agreement, and to ensure subsidies are provided to businesses with appropriate safeguards in place. It is clear that the current temporary arrangements are insufficient and have not provided the clarity that businesses and public bodies need. We also recognise that a new regime will allow local authorities and others to make some subsidy decisions more quickly under a simplified process than under the EU regime, and it is welcome that we are moving away from a system of advanced notifications towards one of self-assessment against a set of common principles. However, there are substantial issues with the Bill that have been raised in this debate.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Considering some of the procurement practices during covid, particularly for personal protective equipment, is my hon. Friend not concerned about the lack of definition around subsidies of “interest or particular interest”, which might create the appearance or the actuality of cronyism, considering the Government’s record?
Chi Onwurah
As always, my hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Indeed, he anticipates a couple of points I will be making. It is certainly the case that we should not leave this Government to define their own procurement principles. The Bill as it stands leaves a significant amount to secondary legislation. The balance between the efficiency of the system and the need for effective oversight, and, most importantly, the role for the devolved Administrations in developing and implementing the new system, are all important gaps.
First, as with previous Bills, including the National Security and Investment Act 2021, important aspects are left to secondary legislation. Public bodies need guidance on how to interpret the subsidy control principles, as we heard from Members during the debate. There is also little clarity on how the Bill will support the UK’s most deprived regions, which is something that was built into the EU state aid regime through the assisted areas system. The Bill was a key opportunity to spell out what levelling up actually means, but the Government have not risen to that challenge.
Secondly, there needs to be a balance between oversight and efficiency. An expedient system is vital, but we must be clear that any subsidy regime comes with the risk of market distortion and unfair discrimination, which is why the ambiguity regarding interested parties is a concern. It is also important to consider the role of the CMA’s subsidy advice unit and particularly to ask whether its lack of investigative and enforcement powers is appropriate. We will work with the Government to ensure that the right balance is struck. I hope that the Minister will provide more clarity when he winds up.
Finally, our most serious concern about the Bill relates to the role for the devolved Administrations in the new system. We have heard from Members across the House, as we did during the passage of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, that yet again the Government have given the matter little consideration. The Secretary of State’s intervention on that point did not provide the clarity that he seemed to think.
We recognise that subsidy control is a reserved matter, but the wider context cannot be ignored. Devolved Administrations have important powers in the area of economic development, so the Government need to tread carefully. Leaving so many areas to secondary legislation only means that there will be no requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Administrations when developing the system. The same point applies to the Secretary of State’s ability to call in subsidies. We are clear that the devolved Administrations must have an explicit role in developing and implementing the UK’s subsidy regime as part of a four nations approach.
Chi Onwurah
I am afraid not. I have to make progress and I have very little time. [Interruption.] The hon. Member has intervened on a number of occasions, and I am afraid that I need to make progress.
We recognise the need for the Bill to replace the insufficient current arrangements, but although it significantly increases the speed and ease with which public bodies can grant subsidies, the key question, as we have heard again and again, is what the Bill is for. We have still not had an answer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston said, we lag behind our G7 neighbours in granting subsidies to our businesses. Speeding up the system will benefit businesses only if there is a proper plan in place. That is where an industrial strategy could step in, providing the framework for the Government to set priorities, target deprived areas and boost business investment.
Labour has set out a plan to make, sell and buy more in Britain. From green jobs in manufacturing electric vehicles and offshore wind turbines to FinTech, digital media and film, we must grow businesses and industries that are fit for the future. The use of well-designated, proportionate subsidies would be critical to that plan. Instead, thanks to the Secretary of State’s ideological aversion to industrial strategy, we have no clarity on how or where public money will be spent. I urge the Minister to give close consideration to the points that we have raised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this important debate. I aim to respond to as many of their points as possible in the time available—I know that we have further business—but I would like to begin by quickly reminding the House of what the Bill signifies and what it will achieve.
The Bill is the very first subsidy control framework designed by the UK for the UK. It will be flexible and agile, allowing all public authorities to design subsidies that deliver strong benefits across the whole UK. For the first time, in all instances, public authorities will decide whether to grant a subsidy. The Bill will provide certainty and confidence to businesses investing in the UK. It will enable public authorities to deliver strategic interventions that will support our economic recovery and deliver on the priorities of the British people, such as levelling up.
We have talked a little about scrutiny; the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central spoke about scrutiny of secondary legislation and guidance. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) raised the issue of the lack of scrutiny in this debate. It is nice that the Opposition have found a couple of Back Benchers to come and join the debate, but it is outrageous that we have had so little input from Opposition Members.
This Bill will strengthen our Union by protecting our internal market through a single coherent framework that fully complies with our international obligations. On that note, I thank the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston, for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for their points. To ensure that the new regime works for all parts of the UK, we look forward to continuing to work closely with the devolved Administrations, as we have throughout its development, as the Bill passes through Parliament. We hope that the devolved Administrations can understand and support the approach that we have taken, and will give their legislative consent. I can say to the SNP Members who spoke earlier that to date we have had 30 meetings with the devolved Administrations on an official-to-official basis to discuss the Bill, and 10 at ministerial level.
We also heard a bit about the devolved Administrations’ input into guidance. Obviously an agreed framework is needed before there is something to give guidance for, and we have made that clear in discussions with our devolved Administration colleagues. We will continue to work with them as we work through that guidance.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Minister will have noted the concern of the Welsh Government about the fact that the agriculture and fisheries subsidies will be within the scope of the UK subsidy regime as a result of the Bill. We have already heard today a member of the Minister’s party express concern about his local farmers being undercut by devolved Governments’ support for their farmers. Can the Minister assure us that this Bill and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 will not be used to interfere with decisions by the devolved Governments on devolved matters such as agriculture?
Paul Scully
We have consulted on agriculture, fisheries, and sanitary and phytosanitary measures. There was no particular agreement among the devolved Administrations, but some people raised those issues.
The Bill introduces a permissive framework. It is totally different from the EU state aid regime, which is the only regime of its kind in the world. No other country, no other trading bloc, has such a restrictive regime, whereby authorities must ask permission and then wait for months to receive it. The Bill flips that on its head. A public authority can give support where it feels the need for it, and only the most distortive levels of support will then be challenged and go through the courts.
Let me turn to some of the issues raised by the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Aberdeen North, and by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) in relation to how this interacts with the Northern Ireland protocol. I reiterate that the UK will continue to be a responsible trade partner that respects our international obligations. However, as the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said in his opening speech, the robust subsidy regime that the Government propose makes it clear that there is no need for EU state aid rules to continue to apply in Northern Ireland, and that all subsidies will be within the scope of the domestic regime. This framework has to work with whatever is involved in our international obligations. However, as the right hon. Member for East Antrim will know, the Command Paper gives the details of that, and I should love nothing more than to hear of rejoicing in his constituency.
Sammy Wilson
The Minister argues that the robust regime should mean that there is no need for EU state aid to apply because there is already sufficient scrutiny of any subsidy regime. Does he not accept that the fact remains, as far as the EU is concerned and as far as the law states at present, that the EU state aid rules still have to apply in Northern Ireland?
Paul Scully
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Command Paper, and assure him that those negotiations will continue.
The hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Aberdeen South raised the important question of how the Bill helps deliver on our priorities to level up opportunity in this country, ensuring that every region and nation benefits from growth. I can reassure Members throughout the House that our new regime will give authorities the flexibility to deliver subsidies where and when they are needed to support economic growth, without facing excessive bureaucracy or the same lengthy pre-approval processes that they faced while we were members of the EU. In response to points raised by the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Aberdeen South, I would highlight that assisted area maps are not the only way of addressing inequalities. A map can be a blunt instrument, making it difficult to address inequality and disadvantage within regions.
I also want to respond to concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on whether the domestic regime would allow Ministers to resist the siren call of ever greater intervention in the market, and whether it would be sufficiently rigorous compared with the EU’s prescriptive and prohibitive rules. I want to reassure the House that the regime in this Bill is indeed robust. It operates alongside the UK’s existing spending controls—the Treasury controls—which are subject to significant parliamentary control. The Government have no intention of propping up unsustainable or failing businesses, nor will future Governments be able to do so.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston was right to say that it is vital that there is independent oversight of the UK’s domestic subsidy control regime. The subsidy advice unit will provide advice that is genuinely useful to public authorities in designing their subsidies and assessing them against the regime’s requirements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) talked about advance approval. As I say, this is a permissive regime, so this is not about advance approval; it is about advice that public authorities will be able to take. On the Secretary of State’s referral powers in relation to the subsidy advice unit, he will not be able to overturn decisions unless they relate to security issues or international obligations. The regulation of harmful and distortive subsidies is reserved to the UK Parliament. The Secretary of State therefore has a responsibility to ensure that the new regime is enforced consistently across the UK.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston and my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) raised points on the importance of transparency in the regime. Our regime strikes a proportionate balance between minimising the administrative burden for public authorities and gathering more data. I think this is more about an issue with the interoperability of databases themselves, rather than about legislation. The guidance that we will work on will help public authorities and recipients to understand the practical application of the regime and what they will need to do to comply with it.
To conclude, I want to thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to an excellent and informative debate today. I strongly believe that the new UK subsidy control regime that the Bill sets out will help us to deliver key Government objectives, protect jobs and make the UK the best possible place to start and grow a business. I look forward to discussing the Bill further in Committee, but for now I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That Sir Edward Leigh be appointed as a Parliamentary member, and that Paul Lewis be appointed as an external member, of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body under Part 1, Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019.
I remind the House that the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 established a sponsor body, which has overall responsibility for the restoration of the Palace of Westminster and acts as a single client on behalf of both Houses. The body is comprised of parliamentarians and external members, including the chairman. That ensures the right balance between cross-party and cross-House parliamentary support for the works, and the appropriate external professionalism and expertise.
As required under the terms of the Act, the motion before the House seeks to appoint a Member of this House and an external member to the board of the sponsor body. That follows a fair and open competition for the external member position, following the departure of Brigid Janssen, and the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) to his new position as the Minister for Security and Borders at the Home Office. I pay tribute to both for their contribution thus far. They have worked hard during the current stage of the restoration and renewal programme, in which proposals for a fully detailed and costed plan are being developed prior to their consideration by Parliament in due course. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his reappointment to ministerial office.
In their place are two excellent candidates, who I hope the House will agree will provide valuable insight and perspectives into the sponsor body’s efforts. It is perhaps embarrassing in his presence to lavish too much praise on my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but he unquestionably deserves it. He is a distinguished and long-serving Member of this House and I expect that few know their way around the ins and outs of the palace and what really needs to be done quite as well as he does. He brings a wealth of experience to his position. He currently serves on the Public Accounts Commission and he ably chaired the Public Accounts Committee for nine years. He also served on the Joint Committee on the Draft Parliamentary Buildings Bill. I am sure many Members will agree that he is one of the House’s experts on parliamentary restoration. I expect him to support restoration and renewal with a keen eye for scrutiny on public spending, otherwise known as taxpayers’ money. I expect him to show support for an architecturally sound, historically sympathetic and beautiful restoration and, of course, an understanding of what Members would vote for as elected representatives.
Secondly, I turn to Mr Paul Lewis. He is a chartered civil engineer with more than 40 years’ experience in the construction and property industry. His early career was spent with the Laing group in design, planning and construction on a variety of projects in the United Kingdom and abroad. He is currently a director and senior adviser to Stanhope, having worked for 35 years at the company since its infancy. In addition, Mr Lewis holds a personal, non-executive position with the royal household as an independent adviser on the Buckingham Palace resurfacing programme. He is also a non-executive director at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. The sponsor body believes that Mr Lewis’s experience and knowledge from his work on a multitude of large, complex developments will be a great asset to the board and to the restoration and renewal programme. His ability to be on the board of two royal palaces is a rather splendid confirmation of his high abilities.
We know that the restoration of this historic palace is essential, but we also know that the works must represent value for money for the taxpayer. The Government will continue to work collaboratively with the sponsor body to deliver that. I remind the House that the programme must be focused on the vital works, not gold-plated add-ons. Costs must be kept down and the work delivered on budget and on time. This is an important task and I wish both new members well. I commend the motion to the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I am, of course, pleased to hear of the appointments to fill the vacancies on the sponsor body. We in this generation of parliamentarians have been allotted an important job of work and it is our duty to see that it is done in, yes, the most cost-effective way, but the most cost-effective way for the long term as well as the short term. This building, which we all love so much, must be preserved for future generations not only of parliamentarians but, more importantly, of the people of this country, who are democrats who value the democracy that this building so embodies.
I pay tribute to the outgoing members of the sponsor body board for all their hard work and dedication, to which the Leader of the House is right to have drawn attention. I join him in his tribute. I welcome both new members to the sponsor body board and look forward to working with them both, with their different qualities, attributes and experiences, to which the Leader of the House referred. I look forward to their applying the keen eye to which the Leader of the House referred to public spending and to the fact that public expenditure is only going to get worse if we do not make sure that we do the right things in a timely manner. The more we put off the inevitable, the more the costs will escalate and the more, in the long run, we will have to spend taxpayers’ money to preserve this building and enhance it in ways that are entirely necessary if it is to be preserved for the long term.
The Leader of the House and I often spar on this topic, and we both know that in many ways we have agreed to disagree, in a respectful manner that I hope will continue. I believe that is good, because it allows for proper and constructive debate and scrutiny.
I urge all right hon. and hon. Members—particularly the new members of the sponsor body—to consider, if they have not already done so, including in their conference recess reading the excellent “Mr Barry’s War” by Caroline Shenton, late of this parish. It is a particularly useful book and is pertinent to the process. I hope that the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has read it—[Interruption.] He is nodding, so I take that as assent. If he has read it, he will, I hope, have observed, as I did, that the moral of the tale is that the more politicians meddle in things that they do not understand and are not qualified to understand, the less well the process will go. That does not mean that we should not have proper scrutiny, hence the presence of not only the right hon. Gentleman but my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) on the sponsor body.
It is important that Members are on the sponsor body board and scrutinise decisions, but it is also important that we do not pretend to be architects and engineers. That book tells us great moral tales of what happens when Members pretend to be engineers when they are not. That is how we end up with voids that are fire risks. That is how we end up with ideas that sound great in one’s head but are not so great when they are built into the fabric of this wonderful building. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will take my plea to heart over the conference recess. I know that the book is available in the Library because I returned it only recently.
I also hope that we can start to approach the task with the degree of urgency that is required. The Leader of the House will not be surprised to hear me refer to full decant, because he knows my view. That is what this House voted for, for good reasons and after thorough scrutiny and consideration. We cannot keep putting off the decision. As the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Gainsborough know, the sponsor body will soon complete a review of whether a continued presence could be maintained in a cost-effective way. I trust that all new members of the board will take note of the cost-effectiveness requirement when they consider whether a full decant or a continued presence is the most cost-effective use of taxpayers’ money. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I commend the new members to the sponsor body.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I just want to say a couple of things. First, I thank the outgoing member, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who has done a great job, particularly in answering questions from Members in this place. He has really led on that and we have appreciated it. We disagree on a lot of things, but he has been excellent at representing the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body. I also welcome my new colleague, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and thank the board for the work it did and the process it went through to ensure that Paul Lewis, whom I welcome to the board, was chosen.
Let me pick up a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). Do you know what? Me and my colleagues are very keen that we get out of this place, and we will be quite happy to just leave you guys to it—that’s fine. I think that there are an awful lot of better ways that taxpayers’ money could be spent, but the hon. Member for Bristol West made some good points about what the House has voted for and what we are now being asked to look at. I still have concerns about the way in which the governance structures are working, because, for example, the House of Commons Commission is making suggestions that seem to be in contrast to those made by this House. That is not a tenable ongoing position, because we will end up in a situation where the sponsor body board is not going to be able to do the things that it is supposed to do because it is being overruled or given three different sets of instructions that drastically vary from each other.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I also thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for all the work that he has done, and welcome the new members, Mr Lewis and, of course, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I am sure that they will be keen to build a business case as quickly as possible—the business case that this place needs and that will be put to the House, because the one thing that we cannot do is what we have been doing for too long: kicking the can down the road.
With the greatest respect, the Leader of the House is a champion can kicker. He is one of the best can kickers I have ever seen. He is an expert at can kicking. No one is better in this House. But we cannot keep doing that, because not only is this about the Chamber and this place; it is also about the other buildings on the parliamentary estate. Portcullis House has a leaking roof and an atrium roof that is becoming increasingly unsafe. Norman Shaw South was out for five weeks. It was just fortunate that that happened when the recess was under way. Even the usually reliable Parliament Street building is leaking in places. We really need to get on with the job.
The one thing that I would say to the new members of the board and to the House is that nobody on the sponsor body wants to create Disneyland. I have been there—it is terrible! I did not enjoy Disneyland. We are not going to create it and we are not going to spend the sort of money that the Leader of the House thinks we are. The only people living in a fantasy world are those who think we can put this off and ignore it, and that ignoring the issue does not cost money. It does. It is costing a fortune—year in, year out. We really need to get on the job and make sure that we have a Parliament that is fit not just for now, but for the centuries ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Keyham Shootings
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
On Thursday 12 August at about 6.10 pm, the first shots were fired in Keyham. In the space of the short amount of time that followed, our city was forever changed. That day, we tragically lost five members of our community. We remember Maxine Davison, Stephen Washington, Kate Shepherd, Lee Martyn and his three-year-old daughter Sophie Martyn—five people: mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters, friends, neighbours and colleagues, members of the community whose lives were taken from us too soon. We also remember two others who were injured and taken to hospital that day, whose recovery we continue to hope is as full and fast as possible.
This incident has devastated the proud and tight-knit communities of Keyham and Ford in Plymouth. Tonight I will not be speaking about the causes of the shooting. The inquest and the ongoing investigations will set out the answers to those in due course. I want to focus on how our community will get the support it needs not just today, tomorrow, next week or next month but for the coming years—support to come to terms with what has happened, and hopefully support to heal. We know the earlier the help arrives, the greater the effect it will have.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. As he knows, one of the victims of this atrocious act of violence lived in my neighbouring village of Kingsand for a time. I met her on a number of occasions as our children both went to the same school. She did nothing to deserve this callous and cowardly act. The hon. Gentleman is right to ask for support for this neighbourhood and I support him. We need to heal the people and try to help them to cope with this barbaric act. I thank him for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady, my colleague from just across the Tamar. This tragedy has affected not just our entire city of Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall and the wider peninsula, but the country as well, and it is something that we face together. I thank her for her remarks.
Our community in Plymouth is facing a collective trauma. We know that there are over 300 eyewitnesses to the shooting—people who have seen a body or blood on their street—and many of those are children, who should never have witnessed anything like this in their young lives. There is nothing that prepares you as an MP for the conversation with a parent about how their child saw someone get shot in front of them—what they should say, what they should do, who they should turn to—and not always having the answers to give them. Like many of the community responders, I had conversations like this not just once or twice but many times every day in the aftermath of the shooting.
My experience, though, has been no different from the school staff at Ford Primary School who opened their doors to the community just hours after the shooting, the street pastors, the police officers and the PCSOs, the local vicars, the staff at our local Co-op, or the residents told to stay in their homes for days after the shooting with the bodies of their neighbours on the streets outside. I say these things not just to seek and elicit sympathy but to illustrate what collective trauma means in a very real human sense. Biddick Drive in Keyham could be any street in any of our communities, and that is what makes this tragedy so scary for all of us.
Plymouth is a trauma-informed city, and the experience of communities in similar circumstances in the past has shown us that after an event like this there are consequences that can be predicted. More children will struggle at school, get lower grades and drop out of school earlier. More people will face unemployment and insecure work. More people will be a victim of crime and more people will themselves commit more crime. More people will experience and suffer from domestic and sexual abuse. More people will suffer from severe mental health problems, anxiety and depression. I see it as my job as Keyham’s MP to do everything I can to stop that from happening.
As a city-wide response, local councillors from all parties, community leaders and the police and crime commissioner all shared in this effort. This really has been a Team Plymouth response. I have never been so proud of my city as I was in the days after the shooting. There was an incredible response on the day from the paramedics and the police who rushed to the scene, the four air ambulances that attended, the doctors and the nurses, the city council and its staff, the local schools and many more. Our whole community stepped up. The teams at Ford Primary School and Keyham Barton, as well as Stuart Road and other schools, have been superb, as have the churches that opened their doors immediately—St Mark’s and St Thomas’s in particular. I want to thank the local councillors—Sally Cresswell, Jemima Laing, Bill Stevens, Mark Coker, Charlotte Cree, Tudor Evans, Gareth Derrick and Stephen Hulme—and the police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, and her team for the work they have done. This was a Team Plymouth response. I also thank the Wolseley Trust for its co-ordinating and fundraising for the Plymouth together fund, which has already raised thousands for the funerals, the victims and the community, but more is needed. Donations are still being made online.
Local businesses large and small have also stepped up, including Zoe Stephens from the Co-op, who provided candles for the vigils and cups of tea at the events, and Richard Baron, who dropped everything to install more home security for residents. When your child cannot sleep because of what has happened and they are scared that a bad man will come through the window, a simple window restrictor is worth more than its weight in gold. I want to thank in particular Keyham neighbourhood watch—Sarah, John, Simon, Lena, Laura, Kicki and Hazel—and its relentless and positive chair, Kevin Sproston. I thank everyone for the outpouring of support from across the country. The support that we saw in Plymouth was cross-party.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I want to express solidarity from across the Tamar in Cornwall. We all feel what the hon. Member feels, particularly about children being safe. It should be a given that every child should be safe in their own bed at night.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon Member for that intervention and for giving me time to compose myself. I agree wholeheartedly.
The support that we saw in Keyham was cross-party. The Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary visited to share the nation’s condolences. It is important to say, because some people are sometimes sceptical of politicians and parties, that party politics is irrelevant here—not secondary but irrelevant. It is the people of Keyham and Ford who are the focus for me and colleagues on a cross-party basis in Plymouth. It has made me extraordinarily proud of our city. Despite the tragedy, we have come together and cared for one another, but we need more help.
Our conversations with Ministers have been productive and constructive. The funding bid prepared by Plymouth City Council, Devon and Cornwall police, the police and crime commissioner, our local NHS and our mental health provider Livewell Southwest, backed on a cross-party basis, is reasonable, proportionate and laser-focused on tackling the trauma caused by this mass shooting. In the weeks that followed the tragedy, we pushed the entire city’s resource into Keyham. We have managed that, but we can do so only for a few weeks and not on a long-lasting basis. We are asking for support now so that we have what we need not just for Keyham, Ford and North Prospect but for the rest of Plymouth.
We have asked for additional educational psychologists and social workers to help our children deal with the trauma they have experienced. We have asked for more support for teachers and local schools so that teachers, teaching assistants and school staff can help the children deal with what they witnessed. We have asked for more social workers and a higher capacity for children’s social care, because we know that our community will have more complex needs in the months and years ahead. We have asked for more support for the community safety partnership so that families can be reassured that they are safe in their homes. We have asked for more youth workers to help our young people get through this and stay resilient. We have asked for more bereavement and mental health support to help people process the things they saw and how they are feeling. We have asked for more victim support to make sure that those who have lost everything have everything that they need at this terrible time, and we have asked for more police on our streets to reassure a community where some people are still scared to leave their homes, scared to return to work and fearful about letting their kids out to play. Some of those requests are about policing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I first commend the hon. Gentleman? He has spoken about how the community came together, but I think we all recognise the leadership given by their MP. Every one of us can say that the people of Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport should be immensely proud of their MP. I wrote him a letter, because I was well aware of the leadership that he had given the community.
We in Northern Ireland have suffered greatly over the years—the hon. Gentleman and I have talked about it—with the impact on adults and, in particular, on children. We are probably all thinking about the schoolmates of the children who were killed—they are probably wondering why their friends are not here today. The issues are real.
I know for a fact that the Minister will do this without my asking, but does the hon. Gentleman agree about the importance of some communication with those in Northern Ireland who have helped in these issues to give the solace, help and support that is really important, especially for young children? Our hearts break and ache for the children who grieve today.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The tragedy we faced in Keyham has reminded so many other communities of tragedies they have faced. One thing we have benefited from is the experience and the lessons of other communities that have been through so much—from Northern Ireland, but also from Manchester. In particular, the team at Manchester City Council after the Manchester Arena bombings have shared so many of the things that they did and so many of the lessons that they learned with so much honesty and transparency.
There is a temptation to say that in the response we had all the answers, and we did not. The bid we have put together is partly about policing, partly about education, partly about mental health and partly about recovery and healing, but it is a bid that all ties together and that deals with every aspect of our community. It is in that way that I think the promises that were made to Keyham and to Plymouth in the days after the shooting—that our community would not be left behind, that the victims would not be forgotten, that help would be provided—are so important to remember now.
The ask we have made of Ministers is a big one. It is a multimillion-pound ask, and I am sure it is a difficult one to receive as a Minister halfway through a budget year, but it is important that we take time to look at what a difference it would make. The focus for me is on the immediate support—on what can be done in the next year, in particular. We have tried to request funds from current Government spending pots that fit with departmental spending priorities. We have had and are continuing to have good conversations with the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Department for Communities. I think this underlines the importance of having a lead Minister to co-ordinate and pull together a pan-Government response in this respect, and I am very grateful to the Minister for Crime and Policing for doing that role, working across Departments to help us get the support we need.
There has to be a national debate that takes place as a result of this shooting about strengthening our gun laws, about proper mental health support, about addressing the poison that is lurking in the rotten underbelly of the internet and about how to help angry young men. Keyham’s voice will be heard in that debate, but the focus right now should be on getting the support that is needed to the people who need it right now. Plymouth needs big hearts to prevail in giving us support, and calm and cool heads to prevail in the changing of laws. I do not want any other community to go through what we have in Plymouth, and that means the changes must be right and they must be right first time.
This has been the hardest month of my adult life. I live half a mile from the shooting, and this is my community. I think we are all hurting—I am hurting—and the sense of loss is deep and profound. For me, it is the children who are the hardest aspect of this—the children who witnessed it, and not just the toddlers, but the teenagers. I think it is worth saying at this point that it is okay not to be okay. I have not been okay at times, and I am probably still not okay now. I think that none of us who experienced this really is. Each of us will process the pain and loss differently. Some will do so quickly, and others will take weeks, months or years to start to heal or to feel able to come forward to talk about what they have experienced. For the victims’ families, the loss of a loved one will mean there is a part of them missing for the rest of their lives.
Sometimes I feel really silly having these feelings because I did not see anyone die, but I did see the forensic tents over the bodies and the pressure-washed pavements where the blood had been cleaned away, and I have spoken to dozens and dozens of people who saw someone killed in front of them. I think I have a responsibility to take my own advice, so I have been getting some help as well to help me deal with what I have experienced and the stories that have been shared with me. Not everyone has to make a speech in the House of Commons to admit it, but help is available if you need it, and I encourage people to come forward. This is not a sign of weakness; I think this is just an admission of being human. That is why the support we are asking for is so badly needed. It keeps the support workers in our community, and it provides the reassurance for folks to leave their homes, for kids to play outside—importantly, for kids just to be kids again—and for all of us to start to heal.
Plymouth is a strong city. We always look out for one another, and it is in the darkest hour that even the tiniest glimmers of light shine the brightest. It was the compassion of neighbours, the love of friends and family, the messages of support, the expertise of professionals, and the promise that we would not be left behind that saw us through.
I have spent a lot of time speaking to the Minister, and to other Ministers and officials, and making the case, as have colleagues from our city council, the police, our NHS and mental health services, and right across Plymouth. The case for immediate and long-term funding is an important one, and I am grateful that it has been listened to with respect and dignity. I hope that when the Minister gets to his feet, he will have good news to share. For those who are watching in Plymouth it is important that we say this: we will get through this, and we will get through it together.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Let me begin by saying that my thoughts, and those of all Members of the House, will largely be with the families who so tragically lost their loved ones—Sophie and Lee Martyn, Maxine Davison, Kate Shepherd and Stephen Washington—on that dreadful day in Keyham. This was a truly horrific and shocking incident, and we owe it to the victims to learn all the necessary lessons from what happened. We also offer our very best wishes to those who are injured, and pray that they make a full recovery.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for securing this debate, and I offer my appreciation for the way he has worked in collaboration with me and my colleagues on this important matter. Securing the right support for those who are victims, survivors and witnesses of the shootings lies at the heart of this debate, and I recognise just how remarkable the local response has been in the immediate aftermath of this horrible incident. That is something of which Keyham, and obviously the hon. Gentleman, can be incredibly proud. The Home Secretary witnessed it first hand when she visited on 14 August to meet the chief constable, as well as the hon. Gentleman and local leaders.
It is right that the response to this incident should be led by and for the local community, as they are best placed to know their needs. That has been embodied in the Plymouth Together campaign, which I know the hon. Gentleman has been involved with. I have been reassured to hear in our conversations throughout the past weeks that victims, survivors and witnesses have had access to all the support they need immediately. I have also heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about ensuring that such support is sustainable long term, and that it will be there when it is needed in future.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I think we have a responsibility to Plymouth, and particularly to the children who were involved in the shootings and witnessed those murders, and it is important that we do not forget them, that we are constantly there for them, and that we can provide the funding wherever and whenever possible to ensure that they get through this horrific episode without scars on their futures.
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is quite right, and if she will give me a moment, I will outline the part that the Government will play in helping Keyham to grieve and to recover. I have been reassured in our conversations that immediate support is available for victims, witnesses and survivors, and that such support must be sustainable in the long term. I know that the office of the police and crime commissioner, Victim Support, Plymouth City Council and its local partners have done outstanding work in supporting those impacted by this incident, and drawing in support from across the entire city. I express my gratitude for their proactive and constructive approach, as well as that of the police and crime commissioner Alison Hernandez. I also echo the tributes paid by the hon. Gentleman to the emergency service personnel who played such a critical part on the day in their response, and who continue to do so on a daily basis.
Although it is right that the response is led by the local community, it is also right that central Government support those efforts and ensure that victims get the help they need. Later this year the Government will introduce a landmark victims Bill, to enshrine the rights of victims in law, ensuring that victims are better supported to recover and have confidence in the criminal justice system, and that more offenders are brought to justice. To ensure that victims receive the rights and support they are entitled to, we published a revised victims code in April to make it a clearer and comprehensive framework centred on 12 key rights for victims.
When these awful crimes happen, the nationally commissioned homicide service is there to offer support to families bereaved by murder and manslaughter, to support them to cope and, as far as possible, recover. The service covers a range of practical and emotional support, and in Keyham it will be there for as long as it is needed by the families who have been impacted by this awful event. The 24/7 support line, live chat and My Support Space services have been available to anyone seeking support, while locally commissioned support services have had staff and volunteers placed in the community, directly delivering support and providing a reassuring presence.
Thankfully, shootings of this nature are very rare in the UK, but when such horrific tragedies happen, they have a profound and devastating impact on those affected, the local community and our society as a whole. We have not come here today to debate the cause of the crimes, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, but it is important for me to put it on the record that protecting the public is our No. 1 priority, and we are supporting the police with more powers, resources and officers to carry out their critical work now and in the future.
No one should ever have to live in fear of crime. Following this incident, I know, because the hon. Gentleman has highlighted it today and previously to me, that that is a real concern for everybody in that part of Plymouth. In the wake of such a terrible tragedy, we are fully committed to helping the local community, and I can inform the House that we have allocated over £1 million in additional Government funding to support the recovery effort in Keyham. Over £800,000 will be invested in community safety and policing to help rebuild confidence and reassure the public that Keyham is a safe place to live, work and go to school. Part of the recovery is also ensuring that there are adequate support services available for the victims and witnesses of these attacks. Almost £300,000 will be made available to the Devon, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly police and crime commissioner to commission additional support services as required.
As we have heard movingly this evening, one very important issue is the number of children and young people who sadly witnessed the events that took place last month. I echo the hon. Gentleman’s thanks to the local schools in the area, which opened to the community to facilitate immediate support. He has asked for support for the local schools in Plymouth. I am pleased to say that educational psychologists have been made available to the schools in the vicinity to support children and young people to deal with the trauma they may have witnessed. We know that organisations such as Young Devon and Jeremiah’s Journey have been providing important practical and emotional support to those young people who have requested it.
As a result of the funding I have announced today, specific further caseworker support will be made available for children and young people who witnessed these horrific events. We know how important practical and emotional support are for victims and witnesses of crime, and it is for that reason that I have agreed to make funding available not only for caseworkers but for specialist emotional support, including trauma and counselling provision for those who witnessed these horrendous acts of violence, including children and young people.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in discussions with the former Minister for schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), about additional support that may be available. Officials at the Department for Education have been in close contact with the council on this matter and continue to work in collaboration to understand the recovery needs.
I am sure that we all commend the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for his honesty this evening in sharing the personal impact that this incident has had on him. I am sure that Members across the House will agree with him that asking for help is no sign of weakness. That is why an additional 130 spaces have been made available in local mental health services through the increasing access to psychological therapies programme.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is also sighted on the request for cross-Government support submitted by the city council following the tragic events. It will continue to work with the council, and with other Departments with an interest, to contribute, where possible, to the further recovery efforts in Keyham in the longer term. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and other Members that this issue remains a priority for the Government, and I hope that my colleagues will be able to say more about the available support in due course.
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for securing this debate and for his constructive and positive engagement with me and my ministerial colleagues. I hope that I have been able to reassure him and the rest of the House about how seriously we take our responsibility to those directly affected by this tragedy and to the local community more widely. Let me say once again that my thoughts are with the loved ones of the victims whose lives were lost in this appalling incident, and with the wider community who witnessed this dreadful act. As the hon. Gentleman said, Plymouth will recover, but a process of grieving and mourning must be gone through first. We will be standing alongside all those organisations and individuals who have contributed to the remarkable collective community effort in the aftermath of this horrific shooting, to make sure that Plymouth has a brighter future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I would like to thank you too, Luke, for bringing this issue before the House of Commons in the way that you have. I wish you and your community well in the coming months and the years ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from Non-household Retail Market) (Consequential Provision) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee—clearly, not when you are speaking. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from Non-household Retail Market) (Consequential Provision) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair this morning, Mr Twigg. This instrument was laid before the House on 20 July. The technical amendments in it amend the Water Industry Act 1991 to reapply provisions to water and sewerage undertakers—generally known as water companies—operating in retail exit areas wholly or mainly England that were disapplied by the Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from Non-household Retail Market) Regulations 2016. I should make it clear that all the amendments introduced by this instrument are technical operability amendments and do not introduce any policy changes.
The 1991 Act is the principal piece of legislation setting out the duties and functions of water companies wholly or mainly in England and wholly or mainly in Wales. The Water Act 2014 enabled reform of the water sector by extending the scope for competition in the water sewerage market for non-household retail—basically, business services wholly or mainly in England. That market is a devolved matter, and the 2016 regulations applied to undertakers operating wholly or mainly in England only.
The 2016 regulations put reform in place by amending the 1991 Act for water companies whose areas were wholly or mainly in England to establish a non-household retail market for the water and sewerage services supplied by companies to non-household business customers such as food retail companies or housing developers. The regulations enabled water companies to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to exit the non-household retail market in their area of appointment. Subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, the undertaker would exit the retail market by transferring its non-household retail business to one or more operators known as retailers, and would therefore be prohibited from providing retail services to any new non-household customers that arose in its area of appointment. At this time, all of England’s incumbent companies have exited the non-household retail market—Yorkshire Water was the last to exit, in 2019.
The retail market is still in its infancy. However, the new retailers serving businesses across England with water services are making significant progress towards building a thriving market for retail services. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is reviewing progress in the business retail market through a post-implementation review of the retail exit regulations.
The opening of the retail market was the biggest change to the water sector in more than 25 years and created the largest competitive water retail market in the world. That underlines the Government’s commitment to markets underpinned by strong, independent regulation that protects customers and the environment. Yet, as is the case with many new endeavours, there is more work to be done to ensure that the market achieves its full potential and that our legislation supports its further development. Our post-implementation review will look in the round at progress since market opening.
In this instrument, I invite Members to approve technical amendments that would overcome a small but important barrier to the efficient functioning of the business retail market. The main retail services provided to non-household customers—that is, businesses—through the retail market are billing and administration services. However, with the opening of the market, it was envisaged that the retailers could also provide developer services to housing developers. Those services primarily concern connections to water and sewerage services for new developments that are part of the developer’s business until their construction is completed and residents are living and working on the estate. The residents then transfer as customers away from the retailer to the water companies.
The 2016 regulations enabled developer services to be part of the market through the removal of some of the 1991 Act duties on water companies operating in the retail exit areas. DEFRA recognised that some developers might still wish to work with a water company for the new connection services, and we anticipated that developers choosing that route would make their own contractual arrangements with the company. However, in subsequent discussion with Ofwat and the water industry, it has emerged that contractual arrangements are not straightforward—surprise, surprise. They also do not sufficiently replicate the provisions in the 1991 Act that had previously applied, and do not enable Ofwat to determine any complaints from a developer about the service the water company provides. Retailers are largely choosing not to be part of this new service—the developer services market—because of the technical nature of the services. Most residents of new developments are also household not retail customers, so there are limited new retail customers once the connections and so forth have been made.
The first reapplication—that is what we are talking about today—is section 41, which concerns the water company’s duty to provide a water main for the water supply in a retail exit area. That enables the developer to request the service from the water company directly, and the water company to provide it without reference to the retailer, although the developer can still use the retailer if the retailer offers a service.
Section 45 is reapplied, and concerns a duty to make a connection with a water main for domestic supply in a retail exit area. As with section 41, the retailer can also provide the service. Section 52 is also reapplied, by way of reapplying section 45. The duty in it concerns domestic water supply and the water company maintaining the connection between the water main and the service pipe. It applies only in relation to premises connected under a connection notice made under section 45. We are therefore talking about provision, connection and maintenance. Section 98 is also reapplied, and concerns the duty to provide a public sewer or lateral drain.
Reapplying those duties means that they once again become functions of the undertaker in retail exit areas—undertakers being, for example, water companies. They also reapply other powers to the water companies with regard to the laying of pipes, the timescales for doing so and the maintaining of those pipes.
We have also modified the provisions so that if a developer first approaches the retailer for the service, and the retailer chooses to undertake it, the developer cannot then change its mind and ask the water company to provide the services directly to them.
Much liaison has gone on over these issues with the water companies, retailers, Ofwat, Water UK and operators, and there has been a consensus that the provisions that the regulations reapply are much needed.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee have formally considered this instrument and approved it. In line with the published guidance, there is no need to conduct an impact assessment for the instrument, because no, or no significant, impact on the private or voluntary sectors is foreseen as the instrument relates to the maintenance of exiting regulations. Finally, the territorial extent of the instrument is England and Wales, and its territorial application is England. On that note, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. It is also a pleasure to serve as the Opposition Front Bencher in my first Delegated Legislation Committee, on the important issue of ensuring that non-household customers are provided with, and can connect to, the water and sewerage mains.
As the explanatory note sets out, the regulations are needed because of the unintended consequences of a previous statutory instrument in 2016. Those regulations built on the Water Act 2014 and were intended to provide for the exit of water companies from the non-household retail market, and to help to increase competition in that area. As the Minister set out, this process is still in its infancy, and I would be interested to learn what more can be done to increase that competition.
We will support the SI today, which is technical and fills in some of the gaps in the legislation. It reverses some of the 2016 SI by reinstating the duty on undertakers to provide connection services in retail exit areas. Can the Minister set out what effect removing the duty has had on people’s businesses? Have there been any unintended consequences, and have any domiciles or businesses been unable to connect to water mains or sewerage systems because undertakers are not obliged to make a connection? Do we know how many businesses might have been affected?
I am pleased that the explanatory notes say that no significant impact is foreseen, but that strikes me as an odd thing to say, and I hope the Government see their legislative agenda—even in a Delegated Legislation Committee—as impactful. I am also not sure that it is right to say that the regulations will have no significant impact. I would have thought that if a water connection company declines to provide a connection service, there must be either a business case against it or the company’s infrastructure is working at capacity in that area. If the statutory responsibility for connecting to the water mains will now, again, rest with the water provider, that must be associated with extra costs for the water provider. Can the Minister give an assurance that those costs will not be passed on to bill payers, and how will Ofwat ensure that any increases in charges are not prohibitively expensive?
We agree with reinstating the duty on water companies to make water and sewerage connections for businesses, but it underlines the need to relieve some of the stresses on water systems to ensure that they can meet demand, especially on sewerage and waste water. For example, we need some consideration of water metering by water companies, not just retailers, and we need provision for investment in sustainable drainage systems and natural flood mitigation to relieve added stresses on the system. The Government could be doing so much more to develop sustainable infrastructure.
We welcome the regulations, but it would be in the interests of businesses and the environment to consider the broader implications, as I am sure we will in further legislation.
Rebecca Pow
I welcome the shadow Minister to her first Delegated Legislation Committee. I know—I will not say I fear—that we will meet many more times. I have at least 40 provisions coming my way, so you may also have the pleasure, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, and I welcome the fact that the Opposition support the regulations and recognise that they are much needed and technical. They are more of a formality to keep the important provision of our mains water and sewerage connections running smoothly.
The hon. Lady referred to sustainable development, which is something the Government are mindful of, especially in DEFRA, which is working closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on that agenda to ensure that whatever we build is built sustainably with the environment in mind. That is why it is so important that we get water and sewerage connections right. I will not go on about that further, but I could. There is a lot in the Environment Bill on such issues.
We have not received particular intel about a negative impact on businesses so far, because the water companies have stepped in to carry out the role even though, legally, it was not actually in their power. They did not have to do it, but out of the generosity of their hearts they have carried on doing it. That is why it is important to make this tweak and put the duty formally in legislation.
The shadow Minister asked, sensibly, whether the regulations will have an impact on bill payers. Ofwat is the regulator of the water companies, and the Government give guidance to Ofwat, and there is always the proviso of considering the cost to the bill payer and, similarly, to look after vulnerable customers. There are strict criteria to help vulnerable customers, and we are always mindful of them. I hope that provides some reassurance.
I thank the shadow Minister for her support for the regulations. The debate has highlighted the complexity of the water industry and the legislation that governs it, and this is only a tiny part of it. The SI makes no change to the water retail policy for developer services: it will just enable us to refine our legislative approach to delivery. As I have outlined—colleagues said they had some two-hour speeches prepared, but I hope that all their questions have been answered—all the changes are technical operability amendments that are required to ensure that we can continue to operate the regulations and the retail market. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Eleventh sitting)
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 7, page 9, line 27, at end insert—
“(e) A free speech complaint is not to be referred to the OfS under the scheme if a complaint relating to the same subject-matter is being, or has been, dealt with by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 39, in clause 7, page 9, line 37, at end insert—
“(1A) In reaching a decision under subsection (1)(a), the OfS must consider the other legal duties of governing bodies and students’ unions, such as but not limited to those under the Equalities Act 2010 and section 26 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.”
This amendment would require the OfS to consider other legal duties incumbent on higher education providers and students’ unions when reaching a decision as to the extent to which a free speech complaint is justified.
Amendment 40, in clause 7, page 9, line 42, after “may” insert—
“issue guidance, give a warning or”.
This amendment would allow the OfS to issue guidance or give a warning, instead of a recommendation, to governing bodies or students’ unions against which a complaint has been upheld.
Amendment 41, in clause 7, page 10, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) In assessing whether to issue guidance, give a warning or make a recommendation, the OfS must consider the seriousness of the free speech complaint and whether the governing body or students’ union to which the complaint relates has repeatedly breached its freedom of speech duty.”
This amendment would require the OfS to gradate the penalty it issues to a governing body or students’ union according to the seriousness of the complaint that has been upheld against it.
Amendment 42, in clause 7, page 10, line 21, at end insert—
“(8A) The scheme must provide an appeals process for governing bodies and students’ unions that have had free speech complaints upheld against them.”
This amendment would require the free speech complaints scheme to have an appeals process for higher education providers and students’ unions.
New clause 8—Guidance on making a complaint—
“(1) Notwithstanding clause 11, this Act cannot come into force until the Secretary of State publishes guidance for students, university staff, and others setting out which complaint route each should pursue, through which regulatory bodies, and in which order, when making a complaint relating to freedom of speech.”
This new clause would ensure that those engaging with universities knew which was the appropriate route to make complaints in the first instance, and how to escalate the process should that be necessary.
Clause, as amended, stand part.
Matt Western
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Sir Christopher.
The amendments collectively address the issues of duplication and confusion we see in the complaints process and identify what we regard as an essential matter, which is the serious omission from the Bill of an appeals process. Our proposals are designed to clarify certain points.
Amendment 38 is designed principally to clarify the relationship between the Office for Students and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, the ombudsman. In the witness sessions, I asked the chief executive of the Office for Students, Nicola Dandridge, whether she could imagine any situations in which one body or individual might go to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and another to the Office for Students, and how that might be reconciled. She replied:
“That is exactly the sort of thing that we need to make clear. I do not see that that is an insuperable problem. We just need to make sure that we have sorted it out and that there is clarity for everyone involved.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 111, Q237.]
That is one of those answers that we sometimes get, where there are a couple of double negatives and we are left wondering how nuanced a particular point is. In an online comment, Jim Dickinson of Wonkhe said that is not good enough and that we cannot informally discuss how to arrange the relationship when in the Bill itself there is no provision to lay out the framework. That is the root of the problem: the lack of clarity between both bodies is a serious structural issue in the Bill, which therefore needs structural modification.
We have the prospect of what I understand in legal terms is referred to as res judicata issues, which is the possibility of a case having already been decided if the same aspects apply. In its own impact assessment, the Department for Education said that in its cost-benefit analysis, one of the costs of the implementation of the complaints scheme was the cost to students of not knowing which route to go. During a meeting I had a while back with the University Alliance, it stressed that there was serious confusion between the responsibilities of the OIA and the OfS. The Universities UK advisory board has also said that the Bill could duplicate the existing complaints system of the OIA.
The OIA itself says:
“We remain concerned that having two complaints schemes for student complaints, with overlapping but not identical remits, is very likely to cause confusion and put additional pressure on students having to choose where to take their complaint about freedom of speech issues.”
It added:
“We are concerned that creating a second complaint route with overlapping, but not identical remits, will be confusing for students and add complexity for higher education providers as well as students’ unions and other student representative bodies advising students.”
We have the situation where it is possible for an incident to result in some individuals complaining to the OfS, others complaining to the OIA about the same incident and both receiving a different remedy, depending on the context of the complaint. In the case of David Palmer, a Catholic chaplain at the University of Nottingham, the student could go to the OIA, and David Palmer could go to the scheme. It was the same issue: two bodies, two remedies. That leads to an administrative nightmare.
Amendment 39 would require institutions to balance out other legal duties in the assessment of free speech complaints. Danny Stone of the Antisemitism Policy Trust told us:
“The Prevent guidance that followed talked about freedom of speech and moral obligations to address harms. We have seen it in Government guidance from 2008 about free speech, which said that everyone can be safe and not intimidated at university. In fact, the human rights memorandum for this Bill says that there will be competing freedoms, but it suggests leaving it to the end point: the universities. You have heard from people today who say, “Well, the universities aren’t getting it right.” My view is that it should be on the face of the Bill”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 129, Q283.]
Even the former Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), said:
“the right to lawful free speech will remain balanced by the important safeguards against harassment, abuse and threats of violence as set out in the Equality Act 2010, the Prevent duty and other legislation, none of which we are changing.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 49.]
I accept that those duties already exist, but why not make it clear in the Bill that they interact with freedom of speech issues?
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
I can answer that question quite swiftly. We cannot get into the business of listing every single law in every Bill. The Bill, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, does not supersede, contradict or replace existing law in relation to the Prevent duty—which is not a law, actually—or the Equality Act 2010. It is quite simple: we cannot get into the practice of having legislation where we list every other law on the face of each Bill.
Matt Western
I think it is important that there are references to other legislation in the Bill. Such elements are critical to the foundation of a freedom of speech Bill.
Amendment 40 would allow the scheme to result in a warning rather than a recommendation or a fine. This is about recognising that in most, if not all, cases, there is a fine line. It would allow universities to make judgment calls that were wrong and give them room to change their mind, rather than leap towards fines. We heard, for example, from Bryn Harris, who commented on how to balance
“the potential conflict that we were talking about, between the Equality Act”—
harassment provisions “and this Bill”, which would have to
“have guidance to help universities navigate this very fine line.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 80, Q168.]
Hand in hand with the guidance—not mandatory—is warnings, or gentle persuasion. The vice president of the National Union of Students, Hillary Gyebi-Ababio, said that it is
“really concerning, such as measures under which people could get monetary sanctions for breaches of freedom of speech. Not only will that involve lots of bureaucracy for universities and student unions to make sure they are complying with the Bill, but it will take away from their ability to freely and fairly facilitate freedom of speech on campus.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 128, Q281.]
That, of course, will have a disproportionate impact on smaller institutions, as we have heard. We have repeatedly made the point about the smaller institutions, typically higher education bodies, but also further education colleges, that were not consulted at all in the drawing up of the legislation.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a shame that the evidence from the Association of Colleges came late. I want to draw Members’ attention to it. I said previously that the provision would apply to 170 FE colleages, and in its evidence the AOC gives the number as 169. It states that if the Government are able to exempt junior common rooms from the legislation, they should be able to exempt FE colleges, as there is no evidence of issues relating to freedom of speech in any FE college. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown has already mentioned, FE colleges are additionally regulated by Ofsted.
Matt Western
It is indeed surprising and disappointing, if not a failure of the process, that the further education colleges were not consulted. That point has been made clear and loud by the Association of Colleges, which feels alienated from this process, yet it will bear the same burdens as higher education institutions.
Turning to amendment 42, it is vital to include an appeals process. Appealing an administrative or judicial decision is the hallmark of any liberal democracy. The existing process overseen by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator does have an appeals process, but revealingly the Bill promises none. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle put that point to the only lawyer that we heard from in oral evidence, Smita Jamdar of Shakespeare Martineau. My hon. Friend asked her whether she was
“supportive of the idea of the right to appeal decisions made by the freedom of speech director, as submitted from Universities UK”,
to whch Ms Jamdar replied:
“Absolutely. As I alluded to earlier, my concern about having a stop at the OfS is that that individual may be required to interpret law, so they may well be required to decide if something is defamatory, harassment, contrary to the Equality Act or potentially a public order offence. I find the idea that those legal judgments cannot then be appealed to the people who are actually able to make legal judgments really quite worrying.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 57, Q111.]
Both the OIA and Universities UK highlighted the fact that in the Bill the Government are proposing a director of freedom of speech who is judge and jury in decisions on universities, and there is no right to appeal. Professor Paul Layzell from Universities UK picked up that point when he said, in what I think was a masterly understatement:
“I think we would have a concern.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 126, Q276.]
The OIA has an appeals process. Why does the OfS not have one or one that will be included in the Bill? Universities UK says there would be
“no right to appeal an OfS decision.”
It says that if there were a decision that a university student union felt was genuinely unfair, it would be forced to implement it, irrespective of whether it felt there was a right of reply. UUK underscored the fact that existing routes, such as the OIA, have an appeals mechanism. UUK feels that this is absolutely appropriate, and such a mechanism must be brought into the OfS scheme as well.
New clause 8, which stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, has become significantly more relevant since we tabled it. The Minister has consistently referred to guidance in her replies to more or less all of our amendments. Now, she has the chance to let us see that guidance before the Bill is put in the statute book. We urge that that guidance be made available, before Report and certainly before the Bill passes into law.
We are not the only ones who want to see that in legislation. I recall Professor Stock’s comment:
“The Bill is quite vague, so it is going to need a lot of guidance, concrete examples and accompanying notes.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 6, Q3.]
In his testimony, Dr Ahmed said:
“With regard to tension with other legislation, I suspect there might well be tension with the Equality Act and difficult decisions to make about a breach of the duty to promote freedom of speech versus the duties imposed under the Equality Act, so I think there are issues that guidance should be able to sort out with regard to what counts.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 18, Q31.]
If the relationship between the duties in this Bill and the Equality Act 2010 are to be decided in guidance, as Dr Ahmed suggests, surely we have to see the guidance before the Bill is enacted. The force of the Equality Act 2010 could be undermined through the backdoor, with no parliamentary scrutiny. As Smita Jamdar said:
“I would have thought that one of the most useful things the OfS could do is give the guidance, and look at this through its regulatory lens.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 58, Q113.]
As I have said repeatedly, we need to see guidance on this before Report or, at the very latest, before the Bill receives Royal Assent. All these amendments tighten up the legislation, reduce or delete duplication and confusion, and underline the importance of an appeals process for all bodies, so that they can challenge any ruling from the OfS director of free speech.
Emma Hardy
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I have to correct the record on the number of FE colleges affected. I originally said 170, then I said 167, but for the record this relates to 165 FE colleges.
My hon. Friend talked about amendment 39 and the reason we want to set out in the Bill the different pieces of legislation that could have an impact on free speech. The oral evidence we heard shows that there is confusion about how the Bill will interact with existing legislation.
UUK asks that the Government
“clearly outline how this Bill will interact with existing legislation and other duties which relate to free speech and academic freedom”.
Sheffield Hallam submits that:
“the Bill would set a higher standard for freedom of speech expectations, with consequent potential difficulties in relation to the 1986 Education Act, the 1998 Human Rights Act and the 2010 Equality Act.”
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is explaining exactly what Trevor Phillips described. He said that a regulator does not go to the final fine or nth degree immediately; it works with, issues guidelines or goes in to provide support, and sometimes that is compulsory. The amendment would provide for what our witnesses said needs to happen.
Emma Hardy
The University of Cambridge submitted:
“A range of sanctions would allow for interventions which are more proportionate to the facts of individual cases, recognizing that some cases are more likely than others to constitute evidence of repeat or serious breaches of duty.”
Professor Kathleen Stock said:
“This legislation says that there should be a positive duty to promote academic culture. That could be a very positive, forward-looking initiative; it does not have to be heavy-handed, although obviously it has the capacity to be punitive. But there is also the dimension of encouraging universities to examine what the value is of academic freedom”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 7, Q6.]
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown mentioned: lots of witnesses said that we do not have to move straight to fines; there can be a range of sanctions.
A more concrete example of a good approach to graduated sanctions is that of the Advertising Standards Authority. It focuses on guidance before punitive action. Its website states:
“The vast majority of advertisers and broadcasters agree to follow ASA rulings and for those that are having difficulty doing so, rather than punish them, our aim is to work with them to help them stick to the Advertising Codes. However, for the small minority of advertisers who are either unable or unwilling to work with us, some of the sanctions at our disposal can have negative consequences.”
That is one example of a regulator encouraging and supporting before moving to punitive sanctions. The amendment, too, is saying, “Let’s have a look at a range of options.”
Regarding the appeals process, it is slightly bonkers—my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed this out to me the other day, which made me chuckle—that we have more rights to appeal a parking ticket than a decision of the director for freedom of speech. If people get a parking ticket, they can make an informal appeal to the council, giving evidence and an argument as to why the ticket should not have been issued, but with the director for free speech there is no appeals process. That is slightly silly.
Most systems and organisations, such as Ofsted or the OIA, allow some form of appeals process—some way of going back to them to say, “I would like to appeal the decision. I don’t think you saw this piece of evidence.” Generally, with most regulators, an attempt at some form of appeal is involved, bringing it into line with existing practice. The amendments are sensible and straightforward. They would give people the right to appeal and provide for graduated sanctions, and I hope the Minister will accept them.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
New clause 8 is a simple request to the Minister to issue some form of guidance about the relevant route for appeals before the legislation comes into force. I think it is quite significant. We are introducing a complex system of complaints and processes, as well as the potential for civil action. It is not much to ask that we get absolute clarity, so that those who will implement the legislation or be the victims of it know how the complaints system will work. I would welcome a commitment from the Minister that we could take to the Floor of the House to reassure people.
With regard to the issue about the rush to sanction, my only comment is that we are dealing with a pretty contentious area, where an element of mediation might resolve most of the problems. Previous progressive equalities legislation that some people have initially opposed has not involved heavy sanctions. In the main, the results have been resolution and progress through a process of education, engagement, mediation and resolution. I think the rush towards sanction will undermine the ability to mediate.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I apologise, Sir Christopher, for not being here at the outset. I always take the opportunity to declare my interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interested. I am interested particularly in the University of Bolton.
Mediation would be an option available to the director. When the director receives a complaint or identifies a problem, I have no doubt that he will have at his disposal a range of mechanisms for dealing with it. This is not an either/or; it will depend on the severity of the problem, and sanctions will occur only where the matter is not dealt with satisfactorily. I do not think it is an either/or.
John McDonnell
It would be helpful if we got on the record from the Minister the process that the Government envisage the director undertaking. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is not an either/or, but let us make that explicit on the face of the Bill. If we can get a statement from the Minister to that effect, I will be happy.
I use the example of a parking ticket, but even with a speeding fine—I admit nothing—there is the offer of going on a course to address speeding behaviour. We are not even building that into the Bill. I would welcome the Minister making a statement that she expects the director to undertake that process of engagement, mediation and warning before arriving at a sanction, which could be counterproductive to that process of engagement.
Michelle Donelan
Amendment 38 seeks to ensure that a complaint cannot be made to the new OfS complaints scheme if a complaint relating to the same subject matter is being or has been dealt with by the OIA. Proposed new schedule 6A to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 enables the OfS to design the scheme. We expect it to provide that a free speech complaint is not to be referred to the OfS if a complaint relating to the same subject matter is being or has been dealt with under the student complaints scheme of the OfS. This is stated in sub-paragraph (2)(d) of paragraph 5 of schedule 6A to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. I hope that reassures Members that this provision is already present in the Bill.
Amendment 39 seeks to set out on the face of the Bill that the OfS will have to consider the other legal duties placed on a higher education providers and student unions when making their decisions under the complaints scheme. Under clause 7, we fully expect the OfS to make a decision under the new complaints scheme as to whether an individual has suffered adverse consequences as a result of a breach of freedom of speech duties set out in proposed new sections A1 and A4 of the 2017 Act, as found in clauses 1 and 2 respectively. Those provisions are clear that the duty is to take “reasonably practicable” steps to secure freedom of speech.
The Bill does not say that the freedom of speech duties override other duties, and so it must be read consistently with other legislation. Let me be clear also that it would not be reasonably practicable for a provider or student union to act in a way that meant it was in breach of its other legal duties. Accordingly, when the OfS considers whether there has been a breach of freedom of speech duties, it will already have to consider all the circumstances, including other legal duties on the provider or the student union. I am grateful to be able to clarify this important point, and I hope that that reassures Members that the Bill does not override existing legal duties set out in the Equality Act 2010 or those under the Prevent duty.
Amendment 40 seeks to provide that when the OfS finds a complaint to be justified, it can issue guidance or a warning, not just a recommendation. Amendment 41 would require the OfS to take into account the seriousness of the complaint, as well as whether the provider or student union had repeatedly breached the freedom of speech duties. Paragraph 7(1) of proposed new schedule 6A to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, as set out in clause 7, provides that the OfS “may make a recommendation” to a provider or student union where it considers a complaint to be wholly or partially justified. “Recommendation” is defined in paragraph 7(3) as a recommendation
“to do anything specified…or…to refrain from doing anything specified”,
and it may include a recommendation for the payment of compensation. To be clear, the OfS is not required to recommend the payment of compensation as part of its decision. However, where an individual has suffered adverse consequences as a result of the breach of these duties, it may be appropriate to do so.
In respect of the aims of amendment 40, the current drafting of the Bill gives the OfS sufficient flexibility to recommend to the provider or the student union that it should review its internal processes to ensure that they are fit for purpose, or that it should provide additional training to staff members. The OfS does not have to introduce penalties. A recommendation can cover any aspect that is relevant to the complaint, and in that sense it could be considered similar to providing guidance, or indeed a warning, on compliance with the freedom of speech duties in the future.
On amendment 41, as a matter of good decision making and the principles of public law, the OfS will need to take into account all relevant considerations when making decisions on complaints. This means that issues such as the seriousness of the complaint, and whether the provider or student union was repeatedly at fault, can be considered. The Bill provides for the OfS to set up the complaints scheme. The scheme must include certain provisions and may include others, as set out in the Bill. The OfS will be responsible for developing the finer detail of the scheme, and the Government expect that that will be done in thorough consultation with the sector and wider stakeholders.
Emma Hardy
I should have waited an extra moment, because I think the Minister just answered my question, which was about who else would be involved in the consultation. She mentioned wider stakeholders. Will she clarify whether that includes the National Union of Students?
Michelle Donelan
Absolutely; we would expect the OfS to consult the NUS, as well as additional student unions and student representative bodies, to ensure that it hears a comprehensive range of views when developing the guidance. That will ensure that the details of the scheme can be developed as appropriate, as it would not be appropriate for primary legislation to set out every aspect of the detail. That is similar to how the complaints scheme operated for the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education when it was established. The structure of the complaints scheme was set out in the Higher Education Act 2004, but its details were developed subsequently. I hope that that reassures Members that the Bill as drafted ensures that justified freedom of speech complaints can be dealt with by the OfS in the way that is most appropriate to each individual case.
Amendment 42 would allow higher education providers and student unions to appeal against a decision of the OfS under the complaints scheme. Clause 7 provides that the OfS may make a recommendation where a freedom of speech complaint is found to be wholly or partially justified. That gives rise to recommendations that are not legally binding, although of course we expect providers and student unions to comply. That is in line with many other redress schemes, including the scheme operated by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, against whose recommendations there is no right to appeal. I think there is a little bit of confusion about that in the Committee, but I hope that I have clarified that on the record. As the recommendations are not binding on a provider or an student union, it is not necessary for there to be a route of appeal, because they are not legally required to comply.
In a case of non-compliance, of course, the complainant would have the option of bringing proceedings before the court via the new statutory tort. In doing so, the decision of the OfS in its complaints scheme, including reasons for the decision, will be part of the evidence put before the court. The approach of the complaints scheme is “distinct from” where a legally binding sanction is imposed on a provider by the OfS as a result of a breach of one of its registration conditions.
Emma Hardy
I thank the Minister for that point about the OIA, but the OIA website states:
“A student or provider may ask us to consider reopening our review if they have new evidence that could not have been given to us earlier or think there is an error in the Complaint Outcome… Requests must be made within 28 days of the date of the Complaint Outcome or Recommendations.”
That sounds awfully like an appeals process.
Michelle Donelan
There is no formal right of appeal. If a provider or student felt that there was a factual error, of course that would be outlined in the guidance by the OfS director in relation to this Bill as well.
In the case of a monetary penalty, which is something that hon. Members have raised multiple times, there is a right of appeal set out in schedule 3 to the 2017 Act. That will be available if a monetary penalty is imposed because of a breach of the new freedom of speech registration conditions in clause 5 of the Bill.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing attention to the connection between this legislation and existing provisions. In the guardian of free speech’s dutiful determination to preserve that freedom, it is right that the watchdog barks before it bites. Equally, however, and as with some of the examples given in evidence by Professor Kaufmann, Professor Goodwin, Dr Ahmed and Professor Biggar, it seems to me that there has to be a righteous severity in the cases of those who cajole, bully, intimidate and cause fear across our universities, for that is exactly what is happening.
Michelle Donelan
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, which is exactly why we are bringing forward this legislation, which really will have teeth to tackle the issue at hand.
I hope that hon. Members are reassured that for binding decisions made by the OfS there is already a route of appeal in place, and that it is not necessary to have a route of appeal against non-binding recommendations.
New clause 8 would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance before the Act comes into force, setting out which complaints routes to use and in which order. The Bill provides for two new specific routes for redress: a complaints scheme operated by the OfS and a statutory tort. These replace what is currently available for breach of section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which is judicial review, giving the duties real teeth. These new complaint routes will be available in addition to other possible complaint routes, depending on the circumstances for students: the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for higher education and the employment tribunal for employees.
It is of course important that individuals are well informed about the most appropriate route for their complaint. For example, in certain cases a student may decide to go to the OIA rather than the OfS, for instance where freedom of speech is only a small part of their complaint. That is because the OfS will be able to make recommendations only on the free speech element of the complaint. The OIA and the OfS currently already work together in a variety of ways, and the Government will work with them to ensure that these processes are clear and accessible, so that students understand their options and both schemes are free of charge.
It is important to note that proposed new schedule 6A to 2017 Act, as set out in clause 7, will allow the OfS to provide in the scheme that it will not consider complaints where the same subject matter is being, or has been, dealt with by the OIA. A similar provision will apply the other way around, so the OIA will not consider complaints already dealt with by the OfS. As for the use of the tort proceedings, the Government expect that in most cases this will be used only as a last resort, as the Committee has already discussed, noting the availability of free routes of seeking redress.
Finally, it is likely that employment cases will be appropriate for those who have had employment disputes where there might be a number of employment-related issues to consider, not just academic freedom. The tribunal will be able to consider the question of academic freedom and alleged breached of the duty in this context, although the Bill does not give them jurisdiction to hear freedom of speech cases. New schedule 6A will enable the OfS to provide in a scheme that it will not consider complaints where the same subject matter is being, or has been, dealt with by a court or tribunal.
Now that I have made clear what each complaint route does and who they will be suitable for, I note that the main provisions of the Bill will not come into force until the day set by the regulations. One of the reasons for that is to allow time for the OfS to develop the new complaints scheme and draft comprehensive guidance, including guidance on the new complaints scheme, and consult as appropriate.
I hope hon. Members are reassured that the Government will work with the OfS to ensure that clear guidance is in place before the duties in the Bill come into force and the new complaints scheme and the tort become available. This will ensure that individuals are aware of their various options when seeking to bring a freedom of speech-related complaint.
The strengthened freedom of speech duties set out in clauses 1 and 2 will ensure that higher education providers and student unions are under clear legal obligations to take steps to secure lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom. Nevertheless, it is important that individuals can access a route to raise complaints where they have suffered a loss as a result of a breach of those duties.
Clause 7 ensures that by providing for the establishment of a new complaints scheme within the Office for Students for complaints relating to a breach of the new freedom of speech duties. This will operate alongside the complaints scheme run by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, a scheme for students with complaints against their provider.
The OfS complaints scheme will provide an accessible, free route for individuals to bring freedom of speech and academic freedom-related complaints against a higher education provider or student union where they have suffered adverse consequences as the result of a breach of duties in new sections A1 and A4 respectively. The scheme will be overseen, as we have talked about extensively, by the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom.
The scheme will be available for those to whom duties are owed under new sections A1 and A4—students, members, staff and visiting speakers—which will significantly extend access to redress in terms of freedom of speech and academic freedom cases. There is currently no similar route for anyone other than students to bring complaints against their provider.
Emma Hardy
I know it was not strictly in our amendments, but I hope that before the Minister sits down she will respond to the points made about the inclusion of further education colleges, and how all this relates to the 165 further education colleges that are registered as higher education providers.
Michelle Donelan
To respond directly to the hon. Lady’s point, we think it is right that FE colleges are in scope within the Bill. They are already regulated by the OfS when they put on courses of higher education, so this is not a change for them. They are already subject to working with that regulator, as well as Ofsted and so on. It is right that we ensure that this provision is comprehensive and that we protect freedom of speech for students who are studying higher education in further education settings as well as those studying in higher education settings.
Students will continue to be able to raise complaints with the OIA, but will also benefit from the new complaints scheme in the OfS. Students will have the option to raise freedom of speech and academic freedom-related complaints via the OfS scheme, or to raise their complaint with the OIA, as they can now. Where a complaint has been found to be wholly or partially justified, the OfS will be able to make a recommendation to the higher education provider or student union, which could include a recommendation to pay a specified sum in compensation or, for example, a recommendation to reinstate a complainant’s job or place on a course.
Without this new complaints scheme, staff in the higher education sector and visiting speakers would have no access to a cost-free route to seek redress against a provider, and there would be no way to complain about the student union. This clause provides a free complaints route to individuals, whether higher education staff, students, academics or visiting speakers, to seek redress for an improper restriction of their lawful free speech. The scheme will ensure an accessible route to individual redress that is backed up by new, strengthened duties provided in this Bill.
Matt Western
So much of what is being promised will be guidance or provided in due course by the OfS, but it is far from concrete in the way the witnesses asked for. I am surprised and disappointed that the Minister has still not made one reference in the entire time this Committee has been sitting to the Charity Commission and the role it will have in this system. It is far from clear how the OIA and the OfS will work. I appreciate that it has been said there will be some guidance on that, but as we have said throughout, there is a duplication here that will be extremely hard for people to navigate way through.
John McDonnell
I think it is fairly easy. A person can pursue an HEP against the NUS via the OIA or the OfS, or an ET, overseen by the DFSAF, and of course the DFE. What is the problem?
Matt Western
My right hon. Friend expresses the nature of the problem: it is as clear as mud. It will be impossible for most students to navigate their way through this, and that may be a major part of the problem.
I have taken on board some of the Minister’s comments on our amendments. However, I really think the appeals process should be written into the legislation at this stage, and therefore we wish to press amendment 42 and new clause 8 to a vote. This part of the Bill is clearly important, but there is so little clarity about how it will work in practice. It must therefore be a real concern to all of us. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 15, in clause 7, page 10, line 29, after “provider” insert
“, a constituent institution of such a provider”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 8.
Amendment 16, in clause 7, page 10, line 32, after “provider” insert
“, a constituent institution”.—(Michelle Donelan.)
See explanatory statement to Amendment 8.
Amendment proposed: 42, in clause 7, page 10, line 21, at end insert—
“(8A) The scheme must provide an appeals process for governing bodies and students’ unions that have had free speech complaints upheld against them.”—(Matt Western.)
This amendment would require the free speech complaints scheme to have an appeals process for higher education providers and students’ unions.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matt Western
I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 8, page 11, line 22, after “OfS” insert
“and an advisory board consisting of sector bodies”.
This amendment would ensure that there is the involvement of relevant sector bodies in the sector.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7—Independent Advisory Body to advise the Director and OfS on the operation of the scheme—
“(1) Following the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall establish an independent advisory body (IAB) to give independent advice to the Director and OfS on the operation of the Act.
(2) The independent advisory body shall comprise of representatives of Universities UK, the Universities and Colleges Union and the National Union of Students.
(3) The advice of IAB shall be public except where mutually agreed by the Director and the IAB.”
This new clause would establish an advisory body of representative bodies within the sector to advise the Director and the OfS.
Matt Western
We come to the responsibilities of the director for freedom of speech. Amendment 78 simply seeks to ensure that one of the director’s roles is to report on the OfS’s free speech functions to a representative sample of sector bodies—something that we believe is vital. We heard from the witnesses in the evidence sessions about the potential power that the director could have. English PEN raised concerns about whether the director will be an adjudicator, a regulator or an advocate—it is not clear. Given that they will have such wide-ranging powers, it is surely only right that their reports are shared as widely and with as many stakeholders as possible.
This amendment is about collaboration—not a top-down approach, but a sector-wide, collaborative approach. Although I do not believe the post is needed, Trevor Phillips said in his evidence:
“The important point about this post is that he or she should be a protector of the freedom of expression of students and academics”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 21, Q39.]
How can one be a protector of the freedom of expression of students and academics without involving sector-wide bodies that represent those concerned?
John McDonnell
In my view, this issue will evolve over time. Some of the issues that are contentious today may not be in the future, and some issues that we cannot foresee at the moment may well become contentious. On that basis, the director is going to be in a difficult position unless there is a strong network of advice provided to him or her. Amendment 78 would establish in the Bill the independence of that advice and the inclusiveness of the range of bodies from which the director will receive advice. As I have said, this is a bad Bill, but if it is going to go through, this provision would give confidence to those who implement or respond to the legislation.
In some ways, I feel for the director, because their position is vulnerable and they could be the butt of a lot of contentious debates. Having an advisory body provides a buffer—protection for that individual against being targeted in relation to key decisions. It is much better for the director to arrive at a decision having consulted a range of independent bodies. I am convinced that there will be an element of consensus about the implementation of most of the legislation, but when it comes to this issue, one needs advice from those at the coalface who are dealing with this on a day-to-day basis. Amendment 78 would make that possible.
I am sure that, as the Minister has said, the director will want to engage in those discussions. However, including in the Bill this provision for a more formal body, the independence of which is guaranteed in legislation, would strengthen the advice and therefore give the director much more authority. The amendment is designed to enable the whole system to evolve over time in response to the challenges that emerge. Some issues relating to freedom of speech that we would not even have discussed 10, 15 or 20 years ago have evolved into contentious matters. The only people who can advise us on that are those who deliver the legislation.
Most of the witnesses did not want their role to be simply that of a one-off witness to the Committee; they had an ongoing interest, and they wanted to continue to engage through their professional bodies or institutions. Amendment would 78 give them the opportunity to do so with guaranteed independence and an element of authority, working alongside the director. I see the amendment as constructive, and I hope the Government will take it on board.
Michelle Donelan
As we have heard, amendment 78 and new clause 7 seek to introduce an advisory board to work with the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom and to advise the Office for Students on the operation of the Bill when it is enacted. Clause 8 provides that the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will be responsible for overseeing the performance of the OfS free speech functions, including the monitoring and enforcement of free speech registration conditions, the new student union duties and the new complaints scheme.
As part of those responsibilities, the director will be responsible for reporting to the other members of the OfS on their performance of the OfS free speech functions. This reflects a similar provision in schedule 1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which makes the director for fair access and participation responsible for reporting to other members of the OfS on the performance of OfS access and participation functions.
Emma Hardy
With respect, the Bill brings the student unions under the direct control of the OfS, and, as it is, the student unions do not have a direct voice through the Office for Students. I accept the Minister’s comments so far, but can she explain how the NUS and students can feed into the director for freedom of speech?
Michelle Donelan
When the new director is in place, they will produce comprehensive guidance in consultation with the sector, including student unions. I am confident that the individual who is awarded the position will be someone who listens and works collaboratively across the sector.
Not only will the measure ensure oversight of the role of the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom for the rest of the OfS board, but it will allow the OfS to better co-ordinate and monitor its free speech functions. It is, of course, important that the OfS should be held to account in the performance of its functions. That is one reason why paragraph 12 of proposed new schedule 6A, which clause 7 will insert into the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, will require that the OfS conduct a review of the complaints scheme or its operation and report the results of that review to the Secretary of State, where such a report is requested. The Secretary of State may also require the OfS to report in its annual report, or a special report, on matters relating to freedom of speech and academic freedom. That report must be laid before Parliament, as laid out in clause 4.
The Government expect that the OfS will consult widely, including with sector representatives, as I have made clear throughout the Committee, when developing the details of the complaints scheme, as well as on changes to the regulatory framework. There will be guidance to help providers and student unions to comply with their duties under clause 4, which specifically provides for the OfS to give advice to providers on good practice on the promotion of freedom of speech and academic freedom. It is important that the OfS works closely and effectively with the sector, including with student unions—freedom of speech is no different in that respect.
There is no need to set up the bureaucracy of a non-statutory advisory body, as suggested by the amendment. The OfS is independent of the Government, so to do so would simply duplicate its role as set out in the statute.
Emma Hardy
With the greatest respect, the Minister has just said that the OfS is independent of the Government, but the chair of the OfS is a Conservative peer, who was a Conservative Member of Parliament. We cannot say that the OfS is independent of the Government when we all know that its chair sits in the House of Lords and takes the Conservative party whip.
Michelle Donelan
The hon. Member has made that point before. The chair of the OfS was appointed accordingly, and the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will be as well. I hope that Members are reassured that the Bill already ensures the accountability of the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom, and the OfS itself.
Matt Western
This is a common-sense suggestion about engaging and involving the various sector bodies to assist the director. The director’s role will be a fairly lonely one, sat in a swanky office somewhere, and the amendment represents a constructive suggestion. As we have said from the start of proceedings on the Bill, we are trying to put forward ideas to mitigate some of the damage that the legislation may cause. Engaging those at the coalface, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle put it, who see how the measures play out in practice, will be really important.
I do not accept the Minister’s suggestion that the director for freedom of speech is going to be an independent person, or that the chair of the Office for Students is independent. People can make all sorts of suggestions about the process that was followed, but the Opposition has profound concerns, as most people do, about how that was pursued. We also have concerns about what will happen to the director for fair access and participation when that position is filled in a matter of weeks. It seems as though there is a siege mentality at the OfS, and a very determined attempt to centralise powers. I wish to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matt Western
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 8, page 11, line 23, at end insert—
“(d) providing an annual update made available to students’ unions and higher education institutions on—
(i) the number and nature of complaints made to OfS regarding freedom of speech; and
(ii) examples of what OfS believes to constitute unacceptable infringements of freedom of speech as set out in this Act.”
This amendment would help monitor this impact of the legislation and assist student unions and higher education institutions to stay within the law as set out in the Act by providing examples of bad practice.
The amendment stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. It simply seeks an annual update that would be made available to student unions and higher education providers to enable them to understand the nature and scale of the complaints being made to the OfS about freedom of speech, along with examples that the OfS believes to be infringements of freedom of speech as set out in the Act. The amendment seeks to address the undefinable nature of the so-called chilling effect and help institutions and others to navigate this tricky territory. As Dr Bryn Harris noted,
“one way to resolve the potential conflict that we were talking about, between the Equality Act and this Bill, would be to have guidance to help universities navigate this very fine line.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 80, Q169.]
Although the amendment does not relate to the guidance to be published by the OfS, it would inevitably form part of a wider subset of guidance that universities and student unions could look to to help them craft their codes of practice to try to make this work in reality—day to day, and week to week—on campus. That would, in turn, help student unions to reduce their budgets and the cost to their members, and it would help to reduce the costs for higher education providers as well, because they would be able to rely on what we imagine will be an expanding set of guidance examples. That is important because, as the Government’s own impact assessment states,
“SUs are the main affected groups that we expect to incur costs including: familiarisation costs; compliance costs: the direct costs of complying with the regulation and enforcement”.
My real concern is what the intended or unintended consequences of the legislation will be for the viability of our student unions. Irrespective of our political positions, we know that their vitality and viability is important to life on our university and further education campuses.
The amendment would also provide evidence of whether the Act was working. Thomas Simpson said in evidence:
“The test for success is in 10 years’ time, when it is more embedded.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 63, Q125.]
I am not sure we can wait that long. If it is to work—I do not believe it will—it needs to be effective immediately. We need to see some significant changes in the months of the first year. If the test for success means waiting 10 years, how can the Government claim to be meeting the test if there is insufficient data to back up the claim? That is why reporting is so important. As I have said before, the OfS already collates data on the number of events that are cancelled as a result of the Prevent duty. The amendment is simply an expansion of that duty.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I want to speak to the amendment because it is important that there is public understanding of what the amendment calls the “nature of complaints made”. I am not sure whether the amendment would add anything to the regular reviews and reports in the amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, which the very thoughtful Minister—she has promised to do a lot of thinking following comments made during this Committee—is going to consider.
It is essential that there is a good, clear understanding of the deliberations of the director. I very much support clause 8 and having the office of an individual who is responsible for looking at this kind of issue. It is really important that there is clarity on the deliberations and decisions of the director about the concerns referred to him.
I want to highlight an example of the nature of complaint that we are talking about. Yesterday, after the Committee last sat, an article entitled “Oxford college run by former equalities head apologises for hosting Christian conference” appeared in The Daily Telegraph. It said:
“New case of 'cancel culture' as Worcester College acknowledges 'distress' caused to students.
An Oxford college run by the former head of the equalities watchdog has apologised to students for hosting a Christian conference…In what has been described as the latest incident of ‘cancel culture’ at British Universities, Worcester College acknowledged the ‘distress’ that it had caused students by hosting a Christian Concern training camp… Christian Concern held its annual week-long Wilberforce Academy at the beginning of September, whilst Worcester College was closed for the summer break. The evangelical… group says that more than 100 young people were ‘very warmly welcomed, including by the Provost, received many compliments from the staff, and were not aware of any complaints or concerns’.”
However, students, presumably from Worcester College, are
“understood to have complained that the curriculum for the residential camp was Islamophobic as it included a discussion on the ‘nature of Islam’”.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Lady is describing an event that went ahead—it was not cancelled. Some students had complained about it and the college has acknowledged the hurt, but it is not proposing to cancel it in the future. So what is the point?
Fiona Bruce
Actually, I think the endeavour is to cancel this in the future.
Fiona Bruce
No, but it is my opinion that the endeavour is to cancel this in the future.
The definition of Islamophobia was actually debated in this place just a few days ago. The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), said:
“we cannot accept a definition of Islamophobia that shuts down legitimate criticism and debate. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a healthy society, allowing for debate and disagreement underpinned by the values that bind people together—tolerance, equality and fairness.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 204WH.]
It seems to me that the mere discussion of the nature of Islam, which seems to be the allegation here, cannot possibly be construed as Islamophobic.
Sir John Hayes
I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. Once the master had apologised, it is unlikely that the conference would be run there again. That is the point. Often, the people who issue these apologies are not malign or malevolent, but weak and weary or befuddled and bemused. This master may not be the brightest spark in the fuse box—we do not know—but clearly he was not shining brightly on this occasion.
Fiona Bruce
I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment.
Finally, the Wilberforce Academy has been held at Oxbridge colleges for the last 11 years. I have actually spoken at one of its conferences; the students who attend the conference are serious young people seeking to inform themselves about issues of the day. We need to encourage that, not shut it down.
Michelle Donelan
Amendment 79 would make the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom responsible for providing an annual update to higher education providers and student unions on the number and nature of freedom of speech complaints that the Office for Students has dealt with, as well as examples of unacceptable infringements of freedom of speech.
It is important that the OfS is accountable for the operation of the complaints scheme. That is why clause 4 provides that the Secretary of State may require it to include a special report in its annual report on matters relating to freedom of speech and academic freedom. Such a report must be laid before Parliament so that Parliament and the sector may scrutinise it. Equally, paragraph 12 of proposed new schedule 6A to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 provides that the Secretary of State may request that the OfS conduct a review of the complaints scheme or its operation and report on the results.
As for what the OfS believes constitutes unacceptable infringements of freedom of speech, it will issue guidance to providers and student unions to help them to comply with their duties under the Bill. In particular, it will consult on and issue changes to the regulatory framework, under section 75 of the 2017 Act, which states that the OFS
“must include guidance for the purpose of helping to determine whether or not behaviour complies with the general ongoing registration conditions.”
That guidance may specify
“descriptions of behaviour which the OfS considers compliant with, or not compliant with, a general ongoing registration condition”
as well as
“factors which the OfS will take into account in determining whether or not behaviour is compliant”.
Similar guidance will be included for student unions.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Does the Minister imagine that inappropriate apologies will now not be allowed under that guidance?
Michelle Donelan
I do not want to get into the individual example, because I am not fully familiar with the details. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Congleton said that she was concerned that that event would not happen in future because of that apology. I will look into the details.
Clause 4 also provides that the OfS may identify good practice relating to the promotion of freedom of speech and academic freedom and give advice about that to providers. The Government expect the OfS to work with the sector and a range of relevant stakeholders to ensure that there is clear and relevant advice to help higher education providers and student unions feel confident in fulfilling their duties. I therefore hope that Members will be reassured that the Bill ensures transparency in relation to freedom of speech functions at the OfS, and that guidance will be given to the sector to help it to understand how it comply with its duties. However, as I have previously committed, I will take away the issue of reporting and consider what more we can do on it.
Matt Western
I thank the Minister for her remarks, which I accept at face value. I look forward to seeing what form the reporting will take. We would be very open to having some input on how best we can make that work. We do not want to be burdensome in terms of placing bureaucracy on anyone, but I think both sides of the House agree how useful reports can be to help people understand how this legislation might work in practice, by providing not just data but examples. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matt Western
I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 8, page 11, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) A person may not be appointed as the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom if the person has at any time within the last three years made a donation to a political party registered under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(1B) The person appointed as the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom may not whilst in office make any donation to a political party registered under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.”
This amendment would ensure that the Director of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom had not donated to any political party in the last three years and that they may not make any further donations to political parties for the duration of his tenure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 9—Appointment of the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom—
“(1) The appointment of the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom shall be subject to a confirmatory resolution of the relevant Select Committee of the House of Commons.
(2) The Secretary of State shall when appointing the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom have regard to the views of an Independent Advisory Body.”
This new clause would require the appointment of the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom to be confirmed by the Education Select Committee, and for the Secretary of State to consult the Independent Advisory Body when appointing the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom.
New clause 11—Review of the appointment process for the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the appointment process for the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom within six months following the calling of a new Parliament.
(2) Any review conducted under subsection (1) must assess the suitability of the appointment process for selecting politically impartial candidates.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report of the review before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the appointment process for the Director for Freedom of Speech within six months following the calling of a new Parliament, and lay the report of this review before Parliament. The review must include an assessment of the suitability of the appointment process for selecting politically impartial candidates.
Matt Western
It is pretty obvious what little faith we have in the potential appointment of a director of free speech. Often in life, it is not a case of what is said but who says it. We can look at this legislation and then try to interpret what is behind it. It seems obvious that this is a clear next stage in the Government’s power grab over the supposedly independent Office for Students. Until recently, the OfS was genuinely independent, but that power grab is laid bare for all to see in the Bill.
To put that in a wider context, it is fair to say that the Government have widely abused the public appointments process. It is not clear whether the director of free speech will be recruited through open competition or essentially appointed by the Prime Minister. On numerous occasions, I have raised the appointment of Lord Wharton as chair of the Office for Students. He is a Conservative party donor and takes the Conservative party Whip. He is a political appointee, so it is not a good record. To clarify, people can of course be donors. But in this case a person is appointed to the independent Office for Students one month, and the next month, having taken a pay cheque from the Government, he pays £8,000 to the Conservative party.
I would like to see the director of free speech appointed through the Committee on Standards in Public Life. On the wider problem of political appointees, I read just a few weeks ago that another of the Prime Minister’s mates, Ewen Fergusson, who happens to be another Bullingdon lad, was appointed to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The pattern that is emerging is not good for anyone across the political spectrum. It is vital that trust in all these systems is maintained, irrespective of who happens to be in power. That trust can be eroded quickly and we have to ensure that all of us do our best to uphold it.
Many academics view what is happening as a creeping appointment of Government Members, not just to these sorts of bodies but to museums as well. I mentioned earlier the resignation of Sir Charles Dunstone as chair of the Royal Museums Greenwich, which was prompted by the Government’s refusal to reappoint an allegedly decolonising trustee, Aminul Hoque.
Our cluster of amendments seek to limit the interventionist role of Government in supposedly independent positions in public bodies. The concern about that role was highlighted by Professor Biggar in oral evidence, when he said:
“someone like me, who thinks there is a problem—and I guess the Government do, given the legislation—wants a director who has a certain partiality of that kind.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 22, Q40.]
That is clear then, isn’t? We want a partial person to be going into the independent Office for Students to preside over this important role of the director of free speech.
Dr Ahmed said:
“There are always concerns with the regulator—that it has to be impartial—and there are also concerns in this particular case.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 20, Q36.]
Dr Ahmed was a Government witness, and I think he was referring to the case of Lord Wharton. Another witness, Smita Jamdar, a lawyer from Shakespeare Martineau, said:
“you could end up with somebody who is effectively an appointment of whatever Government is in place at the time, and who does not necessarily have any skills or expertise to make those judgments but is the last word on them. Again, in terms of freedom, that does not feel terribly free.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 57, Q111.]
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Does the hon. Member agree that it is important that, although these individuals are independent, they are also accountable? Does he recognise, as I do, having been part of a number of confirmation hearings for individuals appointed by the Government to significant roles in which they are expected to exercise independence, that that public, cross-party scrutiny—in this case, through the Education Committee—ensures that individuals can be questioned, and that the concerns that have been highlighted can be addressed, before the person assumes office, and that that happens in public and in a transparent manner?
Matt Western
Of course, we all want to believe in those processes, but when the processes end up consistently with mates of the Prime Minister being appointed, it is pretty disturbing.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
What the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner said about transparency is correct. There might be a Select Committee looking at the individuals, but unlike the US system, there is no power of veto to stop those individuals being appointed. If a party has a majority, it will have its person, whether other people like it or not.
Matt Western
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is one of the failings of our process in this country. I came across that when looking at international trade and the trade deals that might be struck by the US representative body. In the US, a trade deal would go before another Committee, which would have a veto on the criteria of the deal and whether it should be approved. The same thing should apply to this as well.
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend might recall that the Education Committee did not approve the appointment of Amanda Spielman as chair of Ofsted, but that was ignored by the Government and she was appointed. It does not even say in the Bill that there would be scrutiny through the Education Committee, which is something the Minister could at least clarify.
Matt Western
I was not aware of the case of Amanda Spielman, but we are increasingly seeing this sort of interference across the board. I have mentioned the case of the museum, and there is also the case that my hon. Friend has cited. What we want to do is put checks and balances in the system. If we were in government, we would expect the Conservative party to be saying the same of us. An honest and appropriate approach is needed. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham mentioned the US system, which is far tighter than so much that we have in this country. I just do not understand how the US can be doing it so well, yet we are not.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
We have ended up in a discussion about the US system versus our system, but the US system also has substantial flaws. One thing on which we probably agree on both sides of the House is that we want to see a minimum rate of corporation tax across the globe, which looks like it will probably be held up by Committees in the United States. There is give and take in both the systems that we are looking at. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the US’s system is perfect or is something that we should be moving towards, but it actually allows vested interests to block really sensible proposals that are liked by many other countries around the world. I would like him to reflect on that in his comments.
Matt Western
I am not saying that the US has a perfect system; far from it. I am saying that the parliamentary process, or the process that involves bodies from within the democratic systems of this place, generally pales in comparison to the way the US does this.
Mr Jones
I agree that the US system is not perfect, but would my hon. Friend support something like the NHS appointments commission, which the Labour Government introduced? It took Ministers and politicians out of the process of appointing people to health boards, and took as its bedrock the principles on standards in public life, which were the main criteria in taking decisions. Would that not be a better system, rather than allowing the Government of the day to appoint who they want?
Matt Western
I was not aware of that, so there is a gap in my knowledge, but I think that is exactly the right sort of approach. We need this appointment to have credibility.
Sir John Hayes
I am not going to continue the debate about the United States, although there are some virtues in its system—appointments to the Supreme Court spring to mind. To bring matters back to hand, Dr Ahmed, whom the hon. Gentleman has quoted, was very clear. He said:
“There is no evidence that I am aware of that there would be any problems with the appointments process.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 20, Q37.]
When it comes to credibility, he said that what matters is having someone who has “guts and principles.” That is what we need in this role—someone who can grasp the nettle. The prickly nettle is the absence of free speech, which is becoming increasingly common in our higher education system.
Matt Western
It sounds as though we may be being slightly selective in our quotes from Dr Ahmed, because I take something slightly different from what he said. I take on board the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, but I reiterate that, as Dr Ahmed has said:
“There are always concerns with the regulator—that it has to be impartial”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 20, Q36.]
That is where we have real concerns about the direction of travel with the OfS.
Emma Hardy
To clarify, and to put this as succinctly as possible, we are asking for the person to be appointed on the basis of what they know, not who they know. That is pretty much what all these amendments amount to. I draw the Committee’s attention to the appointment process for the OIA chair, because it looks much fairer. It focuses on the need for relevant skills and expertise, and the chair is
“appointed through fair and open competition in line with the Nolan Principles because of the value and relevance of their skills and experience.”
The OIA is not Government-owned or funded, and the chair is appointed as an independent trustee. That is the kind of thing that we are looking at here. If we refer back to the evidence given by UUK and many others, including the lawyer, we can see that they were looking for someone with some kind of legal experience and knowledge of the sector, who was appointed independently. Everybody from those evidence sessions would say the same thing if they were sitting here: “Let’s have some independence in this process.”
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend, who has mentioned points that I was just about to come to.
Matt Western
It is absolutely fine, and I appreciate it. The Universities UK advisory board said quite explicitly that openness and transparency are needed in this appointment.
I wanted to come on to the models that we could be using to improve the appointment of the director for freedom of speech; we recognise that the Government are determined to have such a position. In the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, nine of the board of trustees, including the chair, are independent director-trustees. They are appointed through a fair and open competition in line with the Nolan principles, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has just mentioned, based on the value and relevance of their skills and experience. From what we heard in the evidence sessions, it was not absolutely clear what skills and experience the director for freedom of speech might need, but we certainly had some insight into the values that they might have.
In December 2016, the Cabinet Office published its governance code for public appointments, in which it was made clear that all public appointments should be governed by the principle of appointment on merit. I accept that there were conflicting views in the evidence sessions on whether the director should have legal experience—personally, I believe that that is necessary—but surely we can all agree that the position should be awarded on the basis of merit, as defined by the Government’s own governance code.
John McDonnell
The simple point is that this is possibly one of the most contentious appointments in government, because it deals with contentious issues. Without some element of robust non-partisan protection in the appointment process, the whole operation of the Bill might be undermined. That is why extra safeguards are needed to ensure a buffer between the individual and party political activity. That is what one of the amendments seeks to address.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Historically, universities were set up by royal charter, specifically to ensure that Governments of the day were not meddling in appointments at university and that free speech was thus preserved. That was the ancient, as well as the more modern right of universities. Surely there is a requirement for those principles to be extended to the body that will now interfere in the operation of universities. Otherwise, we undermine the whole principle of independence, autonomy and therefore free speech in our higher education sector.
John McDonnell
I caution Government Members. There have been reports recently of a pattern of behaviour by Government of making appointments of, in effect, members of and donors to the Tory party—some have described them as cronies. That evidences, I think, an attitude in some parts of Government that overrides the very principles that my hon. Friend refers to and, to be honest, the traditional practice that we have come to expect of Governments. We are nearing a limit on that.
Emma Hardy
It is worth pointing out that we have no written constitution in this country. Everything we have is based on practice and tradition, because of the lack of a written constitution. Our university sector has always acted as a counterbalance to any Government of the day in offering criticism and scrutiny, forming another counterweight in our democracy. Any attempt to undermine that by politicising it through a political appointment exercising the powers in the Bill should concern each and every one of us. Governments and parties change and, as I said before and was agreed with, the people sitting on the Government Benches would be very concerned if the proposals in the Bill were those of the Labour party and we were wishing to exercise the kind of political control over the universities of the day that the Government do with this Bill.
John McDonnell
To follow up on that point, we and a large number of organisations and individuals will be extremely interested in the appointment of this individual. If there is any whiff of a political appointment, it will completely undermine the Bill and the Government’s intentions, whether we agree with them or not—I caution them on that point. That is why building additional safeguards into the Bill is important.
I have been a strong supporter of the establishment and development of Select Committees. As shadow Chancellor, I argued for a greater role for Select Committees in the formal appointment of the Governor of the Bank of England and others. If we cannot secure the role of the Select Committee in the confirmation of an appointment, it would be valuable to hear the Minister’s views on a pre-appointment hearing. As the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner said, that would at least provide an opportunity for greater scrutiny of the individual and the process.
I caution the Government. There is often an element in a piece of legislation that can unpick the whole of the legislation’s import. I think this is a banana skin waiting to be stood upon if the Government are not careful and do not ensure that the process is above reproach and free from any party political interference. That could poison the well altogether.
Mr Jones
As I have already stated, I have deep concerns about the Bill. It comes back to what we define as freedom of speech. In the evidence sessions, we found different views and different incidents, in terms of no-platforming and organisations being stopped from using buildings. The hon. Member for Congleton raised Christian Concern. I have read its website. It holds some quite extreme views, and I could understand why it would cause offence to certain students. In my opinion, it is down to the institution whether they allow such an organisation’s event to take place. For example, a gay student would be concerned that the organisation in question was questioning things such as the ban on gay conversion therapy. I understand why people might think that is what their institution should be about—disagreements.
Fiona Bruce
I am actually very glad that the right hon. Member mentioned that point. That is the other issue that was mentioned in the press report that appeared to cause concern to the students who complained about it. Conversion therapy is going to be the subject of a Government consultation. It is a current, contentious issue, on which people have different views.
Mr Jones
They do. I think it is up to an institution whether they allow people to complain, if they want to complain about that. I am a bit concerned that Gerald Batten, a former UK Independence party leader, who has some quite horrific views on Islam, for example, wrote the foreword to one of the organisation’s documents. Putting that point to one side, people can complain about these organisations, which is good. I personally think it is down to the institution to decide whether it should allow its buildings to be used.
As I have said before, the reason the appointment is so important is that the individual will have a lot of power in deciding what is defined as freedom of speech. In the Bill, we skirt around the issue; we have not got a clear definition of freedom of speech. We know from the discussions that we have had in Committee that the definition varies between different individuals. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, whom I have huge respect for, said that it is about people’s principles. That is what concerns me, because people’s principles are very different, and that is the problem. Today, it will be the Conservatives who can make political appointments, because they have a majority in this Parliament. They can appoint who they wish. But what happens if we have a Government of a very different complexion—they could be extreme right or extreme left—who want to put forward someone who will interpret the definition of freedom of speech? That could have a chilling—I will use that word again, because it is the in word—effect on the way the state or the Government of the day dictate to independent institutions what they can and cannot discuss, and what they can and cannot do. I say again that the Bill is very unconservative in that respect.
I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington is asking for something radical. I know it is out of favour with the current Government, but he is basically saying that we should have a system underpinned by the Nolan principles. Sir Christopher, you are long enough in the tooth to know why those principles were brought in. Let us be honest: they were brought in during a very squalid period of our history in the early 1990s, when individuals connected to the Government of the day were involved in some quite unsavoury practices. I am always wary that things such as the Nolan principles should not become like tablets of stone. However, they have served us as a nation well, not just for national appointments, but in local government and other institutions. We should ensure that people are appointed on merit and because of their abilities and expertise in an area.
If the Government’s current direction of travel is to ignore the Nolan principles in large part, I would be quite relaxed about it, but we have a Prime Minister who is determined to put a Government stamp on an array of institutions, from museums right through to universities. It concerns me that we do not have safeguards in the Bill as regards an individual who will have a lot of power.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about me, which he knows are reciprocated. He is always worth listening to and has great experience, both in this House and in Government. However, almost in the same breath, and certainly in the same intervention, he challenged the idea of principles—I was quoting Dr Ahmed about that, by the way—and then made a case for the Nolan principles. He is implicitly accepting that there is a series of measures that can be established and that are the proper means by which the new director can do his job. If we can devise and implement the Nolan principles, I am sure the new director would advise and implement principles in a similar vein.
Mr Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is confusing people’s political principles with the Nolan principles. If Dr Ahmed was suggesting that the Government believe passionately in the Nolan principles, I would have no problem with that, but I do not think that is a fair interpretation. Do the Government have form in this area? They clearly do in the appointment of Lord Wharton as the head of the Office for Students. I actually quite like the individual as an individual, but what are his qualifications for that job, apart from having been the former Member for Stockton South?
Emma Hardy
On the point about qualifications for the job, it would be helpful if the Minister could say whether those involve having legal knowledge and an understanding of the sector, which are things that much of the written evidence stated were needed.
Mr Jones
Another qualification might be being a very keen supporter of the Prime Minister on Brexit. However, in response to my hon. Friend, yes, we need that, and we are flying blind on the job description. It is quite common for public appointments to have a job spec. I have been involved in appointments, and we usually use that in the process.
Michelle Donelan
Amendment 85 seeks to ensure that the director is a person who has not donated to any political party in the last three years, and it would prohibit the director from making donations to political parties for the duration of their tenure. New clause 9 seeks to set out additional requirements for the appointment process of the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the Office for Students, requiring approval by the Education Committee and that the Secretary of State take into account the views of an independent advisory body. New clause 11 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the appointment process for the director within six months of the calling of a new Parliament. That review would assess the suitability of the process for selecting politically impartial candidates. The Secretary of State would be required to lay a copy of the review report before Parliament.
The director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will be appointed in the same way as other members of the board of the Office for Students, under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 by the Secretary of State. I assure Members that that will be done in the usual way, in accordance with the public appointments process. I emphasise, as has been demonstrated in our sittings, that freedom of speech and academic freedom are fundamental principles in higher education; they are not the preserve of one political party.
Emma Hardy
The Minister is genuinely very generous in giving way. She always lets me in, and I appreciate that. Will the job description for this brand-new role be written, as discussed previously, in consultation with the sector, including the National Union of Students, so that we get the right description to ensure that we get the right person?
Michelle Donelan
Throughout my tenure as Minister of State for Universities, I have worked closely with the sector, listening to its views and its requirements for the role, as the Department has done. We will continue to do that.
Matt Western
On the appointment and the process, the Minister was in place as the Minister of State for Higher Education for the appointment of Lord Wharton. What were the skills and expertise that got him the job?
Michelle Donelan
We are going very off topic. We have a lot of clauses to get through, so I will continue.
There will also be important oversight built into the system when the director has been appointed. The director will be responsible for reporting to other members of the OfS on the performance of the OfS’s free speech functions. That reflects a similar provision in paragraph 3(1)(c) of schedule 1 to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which makes the director for fair access and participation responsible for
“reporting to the other members of the OfS on the performance of the OfS’s access and participation functions.”
That will not only ensure oversight of the role of the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom, but the rest of the OfS board will also allow the OfS to better co-ordinate and monitor its free speech functions.
I therefore hope that Members will be reassured that the appointment of the director will be in line with the usual public appointments process and that the role of the director is ultimately overseen by the rest of the OfS board.
Matt Western
This has been an important debate. As we have said, this will be way too much power invested in one individual. That will then lead to that individual’s interpretations of situations against their personal set of values and principles.
Emma Hardy
Hopefully, the next time the Minister stands up she might be able to clarify whether the appointment of the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will be subjected to a pre-appointment process with the Education Committee, in the way that Amanda Spielman was when she was appointed to Ofsted, for example, and in the way that the Committee deals with other educational appointments? Will we have that pre-appointment hearing?
Matt Western
Indeed. The purpose behind new clause 9 is to have a process whereby the appointment goes through the appropriate body in the House of Commons, which we suggest is the Education Committee.
The bottom line is that we do not see any safeguards in the process. We do not see any checks or balances to ensure that this individual does not abuse the power and influence that they may weald. It is important to have some trust in the appointment process, which is why new clause 9 says the appointment should go through the Education Committee, ideally with some pre-appointment consideration. There are many advantages to that, not just in terms of the power to veto.
The Education Committee should have more say anyway. It is important to empower these bodies, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham described when he talked about the veto processes that exist in the US system but that we seem to ignore completely. Those are the sorts of checks and balances that we want to see introduced.
Emma Hardy
The reason for talking about the Education Committee is that people said in some of the evidence that they wanted democratic oversight. We are fully aware that the Education Committee is balanced by who has the majority in Government, so there would currently be a Conversative majority, but it is still an important democratic safeguard to have a separate body to scrutinise the appointment and have a veto. I hope that is something the Minister will take away and seriously consider.
Matt Western
I am sure that the Minister is listening to these points. I think the Education Committee should have certain powers and status, and its involvement in these processes would be useful. I would even widen this to a broader panel if possible, with sector involvement as well, because experience, expertise and understanding of the reality on the ground is important. Having someone parachuted in because their political persuasion suits the Prime Minister is not a good way to govern such an important part of our democratic landscape.
The concern is that there will be a clear differentiation between—
Elections Bill (Fifth sitting)
Wednesday 22nd September 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 September 2021 - (22 Sep 2021)
The Chair
Before we begin, I will make a few preliminary remarks. There is a load of stuff here about face masks, mobile phones, and food and drink, but do what you like, within reason. We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same, or a similar, issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill. Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or new clause to a Division should indicate when speaking to it that they wish to do so.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
On a point of order, Sir Edward. On Monday evening, the House considered an instruction motion that had been tabled in the name of the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). The motion changes the scope of the Bill and includes different types of electoral systems. Having had four evidence sessions in which we were unable to question witnesses about different electoral systems, I wonder whether you, Sir Edward, have had any indication from the new Government Whip, the hon. Member for Castle Point, about whether more evidence sessions will be timetabled so that the Committee can take evidence from expert witnesses on different electoral systems.
The Chair
I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. I have had no communication from the Government. Regarding more time, it is perfectly in order for the Committee to come to an agreement, either between the usual channels or by way of an amendment, to allow more time. I will leave it to the hon. Lady to discuss with her colleagues and the Government whether they want more time. I am sure that my colleagues and I will be perfectly open to that, but it is entirely up to the Committee. We are in your hands.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Sir Edward. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. It is outrageous that the Government should seek to parachute in something in addition to the scope of the Bill without any debate. There was no debate on Monday night, because the Minister, the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), did not engage with the House. He turned up and read a pre-prepared statement. He did not engage. He did not even take an intervention from his opposite number. It is farcical that it should happen in such a way that no questions were answered and there was no scrutiny. This did not appear from thin air. The Government knew that this was happening; yet I believe they held it back from the Committee. I think it is only right that the Committee should have a chance to bring back expert witnesses so that we can have testimony from them on what this crucial part of the new scope will mean for the entire Bill.
The Chair
I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. That is a perfectly fair point, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to table an amendment to that effect, I am sure that the Government will listen very closely. I am completely in the hands of the Committee.
We will start with clause 1, and the question that it stand part of the Bill. Members will note my grouping and selection, and that several detailed matters relating to voter ID will be covered in debates on amendments later today. Clause 1 introduces the schedule on voter ID. I would be grateful if Members could please restrict their remarks to the principles of the proposals. That is quite important. I am sure that we can have a very wide-ranging debate that will be more like a Second Reading debate, but remember that there are loads of amendments later, so there is no point in getting into detail now. We will have plenty of time to discuss the detail.
Clause 1
Voter Identification
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kemi Badenoch)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to progress the passage of the Bill. I pay tribute to my predecessor, the Minister of State for Disabled People, Work and Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), for her great contribution to the proposals in the legislation. I ask the Committee’s forgiveness if I am not as sharp as she has been on the details. This is very new to me, following my taking on this position, but I look forward to taking the Bill through Committee and the upcoming stages.
I begin by introducing clause 1, which delivers the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce photographic identification for voting at polling stations. I will first focus on the principle behind the measure, and why it is essential to the protection of our democracy. The details of its operation will be addressed later, when discussing the contents of schedule 1. I am sure the Committee will agree that it is paramount that we protect the security and integrity of our ballot, so that our elections will remain secure well into the future. The process for voting in polling stations in Great Britain has had no significant changes to security since the Ballot Act 1872. A system used in the Victorian era, when everybody was well acquainted with their neighbours, is simply not fit for the 21st century.
As my predecessor set out many times, there are undeniable vulnerabilities in our system that let people down because they can lead, and have led, to votes being stolen by unscrupulous individuals. We cannot sit idly by and tolerate that. Where there is the opportunity for fraud, we must act, particularly when we have the power to stamp it out with such a straightforward, simple policy. Just because someone is not regularly burgled does not mean that they stop locking their front door. Showing photo identification is an entirely reasonable and proportionate way to confirm that someone is who they say they are.
Many people would question why a requirement to show identification at polling stations is not already in place. In fact, the majority of the public—66%—have said that it would make them more confident in the security of the voting system. To suggest that specific groups, such as young people or those from an ethnic minority background, would automatically not be able to access the freely available voter card, based on assumptions about the work that will be done, is to unfairly diminish the agency and desire of those groups to participate. I will be unambiguous in setting this out: anyone who is eligible to vote will continue to have the opportunity to do so.
Cat Smith
I welcome the Minister to her place, and appreciate that she is obviously quite new to this area. I wonder how she feels able to back up what she just said about different demographic groups not having any trouble accessing free ID. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency does not hold data on the ethnic background of people who hold a driving licence, and the Home Office does not hold data on the ethnicity of those who hold passports. Given that those are the two main forms of ID, how is she confident that any particular ethnic group will not be disproportionately affected by the policy?
Kemi Badenoch
I am happy to answer that question. As we produce guidance, we will be able to give more details on the specifics, but the fact is that it is an insult to say that someone from an ethnic minority background will have difficulty procuring ID. That is nonsense.
Kemi Badenoch
No, no—I have given way. I am also, as the hon. Lady will know, the Minister for Equalities. I have spent a year working on the disproportionate impact that covid has had on people. Being able to collect data is critical, but assuming from the get-go that people are disadvantaged on the basis of their background is stigmatising, and denies them their agency.
Kemi Badenoch
Let me finish. I do not know the conversations that the hon. Lady has had with other people. I think that she will find that on this issue I will be very robust, and I will not stand in this House and have ethnic minorities denigrated with the assumption that they need the Labour party or the liberal left to hold their hand in order to vote. We have had pilots, and there is a lot of evidence to show that this policy does not discourage people from voting.
Cat Smith
On a point of order, Sir Edward. I never said anything about ethnic minorities in my intervention on the Minister. I said that data on different ethnic groups was not collected. I never made any comment about ethnic minorities. I just wish to make that clear for the record.
The Chair
The hon. Lady has made her point, and I am sure that the Committee will have heard it.
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Lady talked about the DVLA not collecting data on the ethnic background of people, so we know the point that she was making. As I said, I will be unambiguous in setting this out: anyone who is eligible to vote will continue to have the opportunity to do so. I hope that for the rest of the Committee we will be able to have a civilised debate, and not one where we bring in issues that are not pertinent to the matter at hand.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I share the Minister’s distaste at the suggestion that people do not have that access and that agency. Is it not the case that the existing elements of voter fraud in the system fall disproportionately on ethnic minority populations, as we saw in Tower Hamlets in the Bangladeshi community?
Kemi Badenoch
I completely agree, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
I want those listening to the debate to be clear that we will work with them, and for them, to ensure that the implementation supports their participation, and I hope that on that principled point the Opposition will stop their negative and discouraging narrative on the future of the measures. Voter identification is a simple, proportionate and effective means to strengthen the integrity of elections. For those reasons, I urge that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
Cat Smith
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I welcome the new Minister, the new Government Whip and the new member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Devizes. They missed out on the pleasure of the four evidence sessions that we enjoyed last week, but obviously those evidence sessions—I will make the point again, Sir Edward—were not sufficient to cover all the clauses due to the instruction motion that was passed on the Floor of the House on Monday evening.
It is incredibly disappointing and bad form on the part of the Government to approach the House with a constitutional Bill that fundamentally changes huge swathes of how we vote and exercise our democratic rights as a society without that level of scrutiny. The instruction motion included a change to the voting system that previously happened only under referenda. I note the alternative vote referendum that we had about a decade ago. If we are to change our voting system in this country, not with referenda and not even with consideration on Second Reading or in Committee evidence sessions, I question the accountability to which hon. Members feel they can hold themselves.
Clause 1 requires voters to show photo ID at elections. I believe that in a democracy it is right that voters choose their leaders, but in the Bill we see a reversal of that: it appears that the leaders are trying to choose the voters who participate in elections. There is no doubt that requiring photo ID at a polling station is an additional barrier to voting. No one can argue—I welcome interventions from Government Members—that putting an additional requirement on a voter before receiving their ballot paper is anything other than likely to drive down turnout. If we wish to strengthen our democracy, as the Opposition wish to, one of the best ways that we can do that is to drive up turnout, because bad actors thrive when turnout is low. I wish the Bill were about encouraging participation in elections and democracy, and driving up turnout, because that would make it harder for bad actors to manipulate and twist our election results.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
In the hon. Lady’s vast experience as a member of the Labour party, has the requirement for voter ID to vote in internal Labour party elections been an additional barrier to participation?
Cat Smith
I have been a member of the Labour party since 2004 and I have never been asked to produce photo ID to participate in my local party or national party events, to stand as a Member of Parliament or to be a member of the shadow Cabinet. The hon. Member will remember from the evidence sessions, because he was a member of the Committee then, that an example was given about the parliamentary selection in Tower Hamlets. I imagine that Tower Hamlets will be brought up a fair bit in Committee.
Where there are isolated issues, the Labour party has a process by which it can put constituency parties into what we call special measures. There are additional requirements to take part in our internal democracy where there has been evidence of fraud in the past. That probably backs up my point that the incidents that we have seen are very geographically specific, whereas the legislation covers England, Scotland and Wales. We are penalising huge swathes of the country by putting additional barriers between them and participation in democracy, when at best we have found tiny pockets. Indeed, the Committee heard evidence that personation at polling stations was incredibly isolated.
Aaron Bell
The hon. Lady speaks about the evidence, but we heard from Richard Mawrey, who is without doubt the most qualified person to speak about this. He said:
“On whether lots of cases are going undetected, the answer is undoubtedly yes. It is very difficult to prove fraud, and when you have proved it, it is very difficult and time-consuming to prove who benefited from it.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 17, Q16.]
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is not an isolated issue, as the hon. Lady seems to think.
Cat Smith
The same witness also said:
“Not only was there electoral fraud in the sense of false votes—almost all postal votes—"
the Bill does nothing to resolve that issue—
“but the system developed so there was misuse of public funds”.––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 5, Q2.]
I think the point that he was trying to make on the Tower Hamlets example—I may misquote him slightly—was that they were working through all the types of electoral fraud and bad actors were in play. There was an injustice, and I make absolutely no defence of the electoral fraud that went on—I would be quite upset if anyone accused me of that—but is important to point out that elections were overturned and the law worked. Richard Mawrey also told the Committee:
“Voter ID at polling stations, frankly, is neither here nor there. Personation at polling stations is very rare indeed, because it is so dangerous—if someone turns up to a polling station and says, “I am Mr Jones of Acacia Avenue”, and somebody says, “I know Mr Jones; you are not him”, the next thing is a policeman’s hand on his shoulder and he’s up at the local Crown court”.––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 15, Q13.]
We know, based on the evidence from witnesses whom hon. Members are quoting at me, that the clause, deals with something that is not the major issue. I feel that we are somewhat missing the wood for the trees.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that although it is quite possible for someone to go in and say, “I am Mr Jones of Acacia Avenue,” and for the polling clerk to say, “No, you’re not,” they are probably not going to know all 10,000 voters. The requirement to produce a simple piece of ID to confirm that it is Mr Jones of Acacia Avenue is not a barrier.
Cat Smith
It is a barrier to someone who does not have that form of ID, which is the whole point of the clause. One witness also made the point that we are asking people who do not have the forms of ID mentioned in the Bill to go through the process of getting a free voter ID card. The people who do not already have those forms of ID are more likely to be excluded from society or disadvantaged. By the way, the Bill contains no detail about how those free voter IDs will be issued and administered, or how much that will cost.
We know fine well that that additional barrier risks creating a postcode lottery. In my constituency, for example, two councils administer elections: Wyre Council and Lancaster City Council. If they were to administer voter ID cards, it would be unlikely, I suspect, that they would both have the same requirement for people to come forward. Some of my constituents may be able to go to the Civic Centre at Poulton on a Tuesday afternoon between 3 pm and 5 pm, but nothing in the Bill gives us the power to ensure that Wyre Council extends that period with evening drop-ins. Lancaster City Council could have a completely different approach, however. We are therefore saying to some voters, “It will be easier for you to access the ID than for others.”
The fact that there are no basic requirements in the Bill is something of an oversight, as I am sure the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton will agree. I hope that we can amend that kind of thing to improve the Bill, so that we do not end up with some councils making photo IDs incredibly difficult to access.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The hon. Lady made a number of bold assertions about those who do not have voter ID. I simply ask her: where is the evidence to support them? The research supports the Government’s proposition. IFF Research interviewed 8,500 residents by telephone, and found that 98% of the general population has appropriate forms of ID. For black, Asian and minority ethnic people and people with protected characteristics, that figure rose to 99%. Where is the evidence for her bold assertions?
Cat Smith
The Government’s own research showed that 2 million people did not have ID, and 17% of those people said that they would not apply for a locally issued identity document. A further 23% said they were not sure that they would apply. Does the Government’s own research not prove that we risk disenfranchising millions?
Kemi Badenoch
I think the hon. Lady is confusing two different things. Those 2 million people are not necessarily 2 million people who are on the electoral register and are not necessarily 2 million people who would have voted anyway. Is she not mistaking correlation for causation and confusing the issue? My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland showed what actually happens when he cited evidence of an improvement in the participation of ethnic minorities and other groups in the electoral process.
Cat Smith
I am a little confused by the Minister’s intervention. There was a petition on the Parliament website about using digital IDs to access things online. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport responded to that petition using the statistics that I have used today. If one Government Department is using one set of statistics and the Cabinet Office—or presumably now the Department for Levelling Up and whatever it is—is using different statistics, does that not just show that one arm of Government is apparently not speaking to another arm of Government?
Kemi Badenoch
I am very happy to respond to the point the hon. Lady has just made. Different pieces of research are used for different outcomes. My argument was that she is confusing two separate things. The point my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland was making was specifically related to voter ID, and we should not mix and match different petitions and different polls that are used for different purposes as evidence, when the questions being asked are not pertinent to the matter being discussed.
Cat Smith
The Minister is right to say that there is a lot of different research done on who holds what ID, and it appears that there is no central understanding in Government about who holds what. That leaves us, as a Committee, high and dry in terms of knowing what impact this policy will have on different communities.
The Committee heard evidence from Gavin Millar QC, who pointed out that if Tower Hamlets was the reason for introducing voter ID, it would be
“an example of a hard case making very bad law, and I would counsel against that.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2021; c. 108, Q165.]
Tom Randall
I was going to ask the hon. Lady whether she accepts that Labour constituency associations that are in special measures should have special photo ID requirements. Would she at least support photo ID in those parts of the country that have particular problems with administering their elections?
Cat Smith
I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s bringing forward an amendment to the Bill along those lines, and I am sure we would be interested in having conversations across the Committee Room about how we might be able to support him in amending his Government’s Bill in such a way. I look forward to speaking to him after the Committee to see whether I can be of any assistance to him on that matter.
It is quite clear from the evidence we heard that the voter ID requirements will make it disproportionately more difficult for some people with disabilities to vote. We heard evidence from the Royal National Institute of Blind People, and we realise that anyone who is blind or registered partially sighted is very unlikely to have a driving licence, which immediately rules out one kind of ID.
Because of the poverty disabled people face, they are also less likely to have a passport, and the Committee heard evidence of concerns that the Cabinet Office had not sufficiently engaged with disabled groups, charities and campaigns in drafting this legislation. There are issues further on in the Bill—I am sure we will come to them later, so I will not go into any detail—about the changes to accessibility having a double whammy effect on disabled voters’ access to elections.
Labour will reject clause 1, and that is consistent with the position we have taken since the first day that the Conservatives mooted this policy.
Aaron Bell
It was not just mooted by the Conservatives; the Electoral Commission has for many years recommended that we introduce some element of identification into the voting process. We have identification at the registration process; would the hon. Lady abandon that as well in her noble goal of increasing turnout?
Cat Smith
I am glad the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Electoral Commission, because of course it did not specify that this very tight form of photo ID should be introduced by the legislation. Its recommendation was much more open-ended. The Government have come forward with the tightest, most restrictive, most excluding form of voter ID. Trials took place ahead of the legislation being presented, but I believe it was only in Woking where this very tight form of voter ID was trialled. I do not know Woking well, but I am sure that it is not very representative of the whole United Kingdom.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The hon. Lady refers to this being a Conservative policy. Is it not the case that the exact arguments that she is espousing will have been considered by the Labour party when it introduced voter ID in Northern Ireland?
Cat Smith
The situation in Northern Ireland actually came about over a much longer period. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute somewhat of an expert on these issues, but in Northern Ireland we did see huge swathes of personation going on in the 1980s. The politics in Northern Ireland in the 1980s was very different from the politics that we see in England, Scotland and Wales in 2021.
Brendan O’Hara
I have been trying, both on Second Reading and in Committee, to tease out where the Northern Ireland comparison comes from and how the Government believe that the situation we have in the United Kingdom in 2021 in any way resembles that in Northern Ireland in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s, which led to the change. Nobody has managed to give me an answer to explain what the similarities are and why the Northern Ireland example is being used to advocate this change.
Cat Smith
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute is right. Hundreds and hundreds of people lost their vote in the general election in, I think, 1982—it was before I was born. [Interruption.] It was in the 1983 general election. As a response to that, legislation came forward to require forms of ID, which were initially not photo ID, to protect the integrity of the ballot in Northern Ireland, where quite clearly organised crime was being used to disenfranchise literally hundreds and hundreds of voters in constituencies across Northern Ireland and, arguably, to skew election results.
Does the hon. Member for Darlington want to make the case that that is happening right here, right now? I would be very interested to hear whether he thinks that, in his constituency, hundreds and hundreds of voters have had their votes stolen through personation—perhaps at the general election in which he was elected. If he thinks that that is the case, I would be very interested to hear him make the case, but I do not think we can draw a direct comparison from Northern Ireland in the 1980s to England, Scotland and Wales in 2021. Does the Minister still wish to come in on that point?
Kemi Badenoch
I am very interested in the shadow Minister’s points, because she is saying that what happened in Northern Ireland in the 1980s is very different from what is happening here now, yet she is advocating keeping the rules the same as they were in 1872—150 years ago. That is extraordinary. We have not changed anything since the 19th century, yet she is saying that what happened in the 1980s is not applicable now. That is quite extraordinary.
Cat Smith
I am really thrilled that the Minister has made that point, because I have been the shadow Minister for democracy and elections for the Labour party since 2016 and I think that, in every single speech, I have made the case that electoral law in this country is fragmented and confusing. In fact, we heard from witnesses that we need to solidify—
Cat Smith
But this Bill does not solidify all our election law into one single, cohesive piece of legislation that campaigners can use, that gives voters confidence, and that makes it easier for our election judges to use the law and apply it correctly. Election law in this country is so fragmented and confusing. The Law Commission has published reports calling on the Government to come forward with a single piece of legislation to bring all this law together, rationalise it and make it more straightforward and simple. This Bill just adds to the massive catalogue of legislation that we have—different Acts from here, there and everywhere. This Government are doing nothing to make it simpler; they are just adding another layer of complication to it.
Paul Bristow
Earlier in the hon. Lady’s remarks, she asked for evidence of where election results have been impacted by personation. I urge her to look at Peterborough, my constituency, where council results have absolutely been affected by personation, and I ask her this question. In evidence, we heard from the chief executive of Peterborough City Council, Gillian Beasley, who installed CCTV at polling stations. Why does the hon. Lady feel that the chief executive of Peterborough City Council needed to do that?
Cat Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing the example of Peterborough. I thought Gillian Beasley gave some really strong evidence to the Committee. The Opposition found the example of the CCTV very interesting, as it is a way in which the current law can be used to combat isolated pockets of personation. Gillian Beasley said,
“I would say that we have seen less personation in polling stations in the recent past. Probably our last prosecution was some years ago, and that is because there are some tight measures not only in polling stations, but around ensuring that we have a good electoral register.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 21, Q23.]
She also talked about the resource implications of implementing voter ID, saying that,
“we will probably see a surge at what is the busiest time for electoral services”.––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 18, Q19.]
That draws me on to the evidence we received about the clause from the Association of Electoral Administrators. It is an organisation I meet with regularly, because I think it is important that, as legislators, we understand the implications of the laws we make on those who have to administer them. During my time in this Front-Bench role, electoral administrators have consistently told me that elections are often only just delivered securely because of the pressures in local government right now.
Local government has been on the frontline of Tory cuts, and I make no apology for saying that. Our town halls and civic centres are struggling, and elections offices are incredibly understaffed. Speaking for my own electoral administrators in Lancaster and Fleetwood, the staff work incredibly hard. In the run-up to an election, they work seven days a week, and they work incredible hours. I believe that all they do is work and sleep in order to deliver our elections and democracy securely. I pay tribute to all our electoral administrators. They often pull this off under increasing pressure. The snap elections in recent years have meant that they have often been unprepared, particularly in 2019, when the election coincided with the annual canvass. They are under incredible pressure.
Electoral administrators and councils were very clear in their evidence that, if voter ID were to be brought in, they would expect to see a surge in applications for the free voter ID in the run-up to an election, when there is incredible pressure with last-minute registrations and people checking that they are on the electoral register. Since the introduction of individual electoral registration, there has been an increase in people double-checking that they are on the electoral register. It would be nice to see something in the Bill that allowed electors to check whether or not they were on the roll, rather than just re-registering in the few weeks before an election, which puts additional pressure on electoral administrators when their pressures are at their greatest.
Peter Stanyon from the Association of Electoral Administrators said in evidence to the Committee that the applications for voter ID will come in
“when the pressures in the electoral offices are at their greatest.”
Because the Bill has absolutely no detail on how the free IDs will be administered, he asked:
“Will it require attendance in person? Virginia mentioned posting out ID—will that be permissible in the remainder of the UK?”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 44, Q59.]
Virginia McVea was the witness who gave evidence from Northern Ireland. The Minister is very welcome to intervene to make the position clear. That would be very helpful. As Peter Stanyon was saying, we do not know any of the detail at this stage.
We are being asked to vote on something with absolutely no detail. We have no idea what resource implications the Bill will have on electoral registration offices. We have no idea whether the free IDs will be posted out or whether people will have to apply in person at civic centres and town halls. We have no idea whether there will be a basic standard of expectation that people will apply for their voter ID in person, but will only be able to go on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday. None of those basic details is on the face of the Bill. We are being asked to legislate on something that we cannot be confident will be accessible to the people we have been elected to represent.
There is a £120 million bill for the taxpayer to bring in this policy, which we heard in the evidence sessions is basically designed to address something that is incredibly rare and very difficult to do. It does not seem like a good use of taxpayers’ money. In the last 10 years, there were four cases of voter personation fraud, and that was out of 243 million votes cast.
Cat Smith
I would like to make this comparison, and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I want to compare those four cases to the trials, which took place in just a handful of council areas, all of which are in England and are not representative of England, Scotland and Wales. Some 2,000 voters were turned away in the 2019 pilots, of whom around 758 did not return to cast their vote. That is just in the pilot areas. Look at the single figure numbers of cases and the hundreds of people in just a handful of trial areas who basically turned up at the polling station and did not have the right ID so went away and never came back. We are disenfranchising scores more people than we even hear accusations of voter personation.
Chris Clarkson
The hon. Lady says that there were only four cases. Of course, there were only four cases that we are aware of. That goes back to the point that was made throughout the evidence sessions: it is an incredibly easy thing to do, so we do not know the quantity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I have to ask her what an acceptable level of voter fraud is. Are four cases of fraud okay? Do we just let that go, and say, “It’s fine. There’s a cost-benefit analysis to a bit of electoral fraud.”? How many election results have to be overturned before we say that this is actually an investment worth making?
Cat Smith
I do not think that any elections have been overturned, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute says from a sedentary position. We have to work on the basis of what we know, and what the facts are. We can only go on the cases that are reported, but we know that 758 people in just a handful of councils were turned away and did not come back. That is an unquestionable fact.
Cat Smith
I think we have to assume that they were. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] Because of all the evidence that we heard as a Committee. I make no apologies to the Minister—she was not here for the four evidence sessions. We did not hear convincing evidence that this is a widespread problem. That is just not what we heard from the witnesses. We know the statistics on how many people were turned away and did not come back.
Rob Connelly from Birmingham raised concerns that the pilots did not reflect the community that he represents:
“One of our concerns with the pilots was that they did not reflect a large urban area, such as Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool… It has been calculated that about 2% of people have not got ID. That is the equivalent of 15,000 people in my electorate.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, Wednesday 15 September 2021; c. 56, Q85.]
That is in Birmingham alone. A huge number of people—thousands, or tens of thousands—in cities up and down the country will have to go through the process of applying for this free voter ID card, on which there is no detail in the Bill. How can we be expected to vote for something on which there is no detail?
Returning to where I was before I took quite a lot of interventions, I think Ministers and Government Members are living in some kind of alternative reality. Perhaps they are watching too much Fox News. Our elections do not lack integrity. We consistently hear that in reports from the Electoral Commission and when our elections are observed from overseas. I am proud of our British democracy, and of the way we do elections in this country. I am confident that every Member of this House, whether I agree with them or whether we wear the same colour rosette at elections, and everyone who is sitting in this Committee Room was elected legitimately and got the most votes in their constituency. If any Member wishes to question whether they were legitimately elected to this House, I would be very happy to hear them say that they think they won unfairly.
Kemi Badenoch
I think the hon. Lady is confusing the purpose of the Bill. It is to protect the voter, not to ensure that our election results are kosher. I was elected with more than 25,000 votes. Anyone who was unable to vote lost their right. It would not have affected the legitimacy of my winning. The fact that she is saying that shows that she is still missing the point that many people lose their right to vote because another person has voted on their behalf. When I stood for election in 2010, I saw it happen at first hand. It is not reported, and a crime of deception is very difficult to see. She needs to acknowledge that point.
Cat Smith
I am a little confused by the Minister’s intervention. That would be reported because the person would have a tendered ballot and that information would be available. The point is—we heard it during evidence—that this policy has been brought in for UK Parliament elections with large electorates and we did not hear one witness say they thought a major election had been swung by mass fraud.
On the example of referendums, I campaigned in the EU referendum for remain, but I do not question that leave won because it would be unthinkable to enact personation fraud on such a scale.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Is it not precisely the point that the EU referendum was not swung by a voter fraud of fake leave voters turning up and stuffing the ballot boxes, but by the voter fraud of telling people that there would be £350 million a week for the NHS, that food prices would go down and that the NHS would not be harmed—it was swung by the frauds that are now being proven as precisely that by the state this country is in?
Cat Smith
Sorry, Sir Edward. We do get very lively when we are debating democracy and elections, and whether truths are told in referendum campaigns, but I will not stray into that territory with the hon. Member for Glasgow North.
Never in British history has an election been undermined due to mass fraud, so I find the idea of spending millions of pounds to fix a problem that barely exists to be an obscene use of taxpayers’ money. I would like to see the Minister strengthen our democratic integrity by encouraging voter participation. Millions of people in this country are missing from the electoral roll. Regardless of whether they have the right voter ID, we do not have a process in this country of automatic electoral registration. We know fine well who is entitled to vote. We know huge amounts of detail from Department for Work and Pensions and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency records, and we make no effort to use that information to bring in a system of automatic voter registration to ensure our electoral rolls are as accurate as possible so that people have no barriers to participating in democracy.
I love elections. I am a democrat and I absolutely think democracy is a brilliant system, but it pains me that millions of our fellow citizens are not registered correctly, and there is nothing in the Bill that makes it easier for that to be brought in any kind of automatic way or to use big Government data in other ways to encourage participation. There is nothing about how we could engage with groups with disproportionately lower voter turnout, such as young voters. There is nothing about investing in our young people or schools to encourage young people to take part in democracy. I am a big supporter of extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, but I will not stray too far into that because it is not part of clause 1.
There is so much that the Bill could have done to extend democracy and encourage more people to take part. Instead, it puts up expensive barriers that cost taxpayers money and make it harder for legitimate voters to participate in our elections. I feel disappointed because when the Elections Bill was mooted, I thought the Treasury Bench had finally heard my repeated calls about the Law Commission’s report about solidifying our election law into a single cohesive piece of legislation that could modernise our democracy for the 21st century.
Instead, we get a Bill that is basically an attempt at voter suppression. It comes straight from the Trumpian Republican playbook from the US. Republican states are requiring photo ID at polling stations because they know it makes it easier for them to win elections. There is nothing in the Bill that says how accessing that voter ID will work. If we look to the US, we see that in some Republican states a gun licence is okay, but a student ID is not. I wonder what the political motivation for things such as that are. I would argue that the types of ID included in clause 1 of the Bill are totally—
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir Edward. Does the Bill relate to the American election system?
The Chair
No, but I have heard nothing yet from the hon. Lady that is out of order. However, she has made her point. You can make a point powerfully; you do not have to keep repeating it. But she is in order so far.
Cat Smith
Thank you, Sir Edward.
Millions of people cannot afford the privilege of carrying photo ID. Passports and driving licences cost money, so I would argue that this measure is a paywall to democracy. In all, 3.5 million citizens, which is 7.5% of the electorate, do not have access to any form of ID. Also, in the Windrush scandal we saw how members of some communities can struggle to provide official documentation and the severe consequences that that can have; that was backed up by evidence that this Committee heard from witnesses.
It is incredibly disappointing that the Government have continued to plough on with photo ID plans, seemingly turning a blind eye to the millions of people who they appear to be disenfranchising. The simple truth is that instead of holding water, the Government’s arguments in favour of photo ID contain more holes than a leaky sponge.
Today, we are considering clause 1, which—frankly—tarnishes our reputation as a leading democracy across the world. I make no apology for saying that it takes a leaf out of the Republican party playbook. So we will vote against it in the stand part debate.
Alec Shelbrooke
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and my—what a lively start we have got off to!
I intend to speak to the principle of the Bill, because we will come to amendments later. Despite my point of order, it is interesting that the American electoral system keeps being referred to, because it speaks to the wider issue of faith in elections. We have seen some disgraceful activity by the former President in America, which leads to an undermining of the basis of democracy.
There is no doubt that electoral fraud has taken place in this country, and I struggle to think of another crime that we would be willing to say we do not need to do anything about. I struggle to think of another crime where we say to the victims, “Well, it wasn’t many of you, so we’re not going to bother with it”. There is a very important principle about where we stand in this place.
Brendan O’Hara
The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that currently there is no law to stop electoral crime. Laws to stop electoral crime are in place at the moment and they seem to be working; as we have heard, Tower Hamlets and other elections have been refought. Does he accept that there are existing laws to tackle exactly what the Bill intends to tackle?
Alec Shelbrooke
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because, of course, Richard Mawrey said in his evidence that the threshold for proving in electoral law as it currently stands is too high to really get over the bar. By bringing in an extra set of checks and balances, we hopefully get away from the point that we would have to try to prove these cases to get over what is a very high electoral bar.
Tom Randall
Following up on the point about Tower Hamlets, is it not also worth noting that that election petition was brought by a small group of volunteers, working on a cross-party basis, who put up their own money and used their own time to investigate the issue in Tower Hamlets? If they had not done so, that entire piece of work would not have been done. That helps to demonstrate how difficult it is to get a petition such as that off the ground.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because what we heard in evidence was that the financial threshold is exceptionally high for people to get over. We also heard in evidence that people did indeed risk their entire financial situation—they faced bankruptcy—to take that matter forward. There is an old phrase: criminal proceedings, or taking things to court, are free to everyone in this country just as everybody in this country is free to dine at the Ritz, but quite a lot of people are precluded when the bill arrives.
Alec Shelbrooke
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I was about to come on to him.
Patrick Grady
The right hon. Gentleman was asking whether anyone could think of another crime in this country that people are just allowed to get away with. According to the House of Commons Library, the cost of tax evasion to the UK Exchequer in 2018-19 was £4.6 billion. When will this Government bring forward legislation to stop the vast amount of tax evasion going on in this country?
Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which is why I am proud that this Government have closed the tax gap to the smallest in the G20—not least through the IR35 legislation that has just gone through, which is a very important piece of legislation. This Government have done more than any other to close that tax gap as much as they can.
However, the hon. Gentleman has almost proved my point about the importance of making sure that we have full faith in the electoral system, because he has once again basically said to the Committee that the referendum on EU membership was fraudulent because he did not agree with the political arguments that were made. There is a very fine line to be drawn here.
Politics is about disagreement—that is the strength of a democracy. I am not coming at this from a leaver’s point of view: I voted remain, and I made points in that election that were defeated in political argument. The referendum delivered a definite outcome, and it was then incumbent on this House to make sure that we delivered the outcome of that democratic referendum. We had another general election, which returned a Government who, despite not having a majority, had said that they were going to deliver that referendum result, and we then went through two and a half years of wrecking procedures in the House of Commons. I know, Sir Edward, that you will more than remember what happened over that period.
Alec Shelbrooke
The point I am making, drawing on the comments that have been made, is about faith in the electoral system, and this clause creates those levels of faith. It is all very well trying denial and complacency about where we are today, but we have to accept that we now have a mass media system in the world that makes it very easy for conspiracy theories to grow and be built very quickly. We must be in a position to ensure that our elections are deemed to be as safe and secure as possible.
I was disappointed on Second Reading that, when I intervened and asked Members about the recommendations of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, those recommendations were pretty much dismissed out of hand. It was argued that they did not apply in this country, but the OSCE has made it clear in its reports that the security of our elections cannot be guaranteed without voter ID, and that is a very important point.
Those who have done election monitoring will know that many countries in the G20, let alone the G7, ask for voter ID, and I fear that we are in a period of history where democracy—which is a precious thing, and must always be developed and worked on—is under threat from those who refuse to accept election results. I am basing those comments more on what has happened in the United States than what has happened in this country, but what happened there is pervasive because of mass media. This Bill is trying to ensure that the perception of the security of elections, which is a very important thing, is clear in people’s minds.
From the very beginning, there has been entrenched opposition to the idea of voter ID. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood—who I have a great deal of respect for, as she knows, and I enjoy serving on these Committees with her—talked about cuts to local government funding, but my council, Leeds City Council, is spending £10 million on the European city of culture campaign. The council bid for it before the referendum, then we left, so it is not getting the money and it is spending £10 million on it. It cannot say that it is being starved of funds when it is spending £10 million on something that is pretty irrelevant and certainly creates some lively debate in my home city.
When we come to debate the voting age—I know that we are not discussing that now—there will be some very important points to make about how the UN defines who is a child by saying that anybody under the age of 18 cannot fight on the frontline. Again, it appears that we are dismissing international bodies to suit the argument that is being made on the day.
I end my remarks by simply saying that this clause is a very important part of the Bill, ensuring that people have faith in our electoral system and that we do not allow a growth in voter fraud. We heard in evidence that bringing cases of voter fraud to court involves meeting an exceptionally high bar and that the financial constraints mean that people are not willing to bring those cases forward, so we cannot close our eyes and say that voter fraud is not happening because it is not getting to the courtroom. The proposals in the Bill go a long way to making people feel that when they cast their ballot, they have an equal say in those ballots, compared with people who may want to act criminally.
Brendan O’Hara
I always suspected throughout the passage of the Bill, whether on Second Reading or in our evidence sessions, that there was absolutely no evidence that voter ID cards would address an identified problem. In the evidence that we heard in four sessions over two days, not even the Government’s star witness said that personation was a sufficiently big issue to make voter ID cards essential to tackling it. Overwhelmingly, every single person who spoke to us about the subject said that the issue that needs addressing is postal vote fraud.
Paul Bristow
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not paying attention to Councillor Peter Golds during the evidence session, who turned around and said on a number of occasions that personation was a relevant thing in Tower Hamlets. Was the hon. Gentleman asleep during that evidence?
Brendan O’Hara
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not asleep; perhaps he should temper his language somewhat. I suggest he reads Councillor Golds’s evidence, which I will come to in a moment. He talked in such great detail about postal vote fraud: it was the biggest issue in Councillor Golds’s extremely detailed and voluminous file. In fact, he was reduced to anecdotal evidence about personation and a gentleman with large feet and red shoes. That is the nub of where he was. Every person and even the Government’s star witness, as I would class Councillor Golds, was unable to give any evidence that personation at polling stations was a major problem.
Aaron Bell
The hon. Gentleman dealt with Peter Golds there, but what about the case in Peterborough? Surely the requirement to introduce CCTV that Gillian Beasley told us about says it is not an anecdotal problem. It is a real problem. That step has had to be taken in Peterborough for deterrence. The Bill enables deterrence without the expense of CCTV.
Brendan O’Hara
Again, I will not use the language that the hon. Member for Peterborough used, but read the evidence. Gillian Beasley said that
“we have seen less personation”—[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 21, Q23.]
in recent years; she followed that up by saying that postal voting is her concern. The Government are looking in the wrong place and they know that. They are doing it for reasons about which one can only speculate.
Jerome Mayhew
There is one clause in the Bill on voter ID and there are five clauses on postal votes, so it is not right to say that the Government are looking at the wrong place. The Government are addressing all the issues with our voting system.
Brendan O’Hara
Again, it came out from the evidence session that postal vote fraud is the major issue and that is what is concerning the vast majority—if not all—of our witnesses.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for the second opportunity to address this. We heard from Mr Mawrey QC, who is also an election judge. In his judgment in the Birmingham cases, which I referred to during the evidence session, he said that
“there is likely to be no evidence of fraud if you do not look for it.”
The whole point is that we need to look for it.
Brendan O’Hara
With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, if a Government ignore the problem in front of their nose and then run about trying to find evidence of a problem when there is no evidence that that problem exists, I suggest they are wasting their time. The problem to be addressed is around postal voting. Richard Mawrey said that Birmingham, Slough and Woking were all cases that involved postal vote fraud; voter ID was “neither here nor there.”
Chris Clarkson
The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are wasting their time looking for something of which there is no evidence, but he also says that it is a waste of time to look for evidence of it. Would he clarify his position?
Brendan O’Hara
I absolutely will. My position is that there is no evidence whatsoever. Policy must be made on the basis of evidence. We have a limited time in this House in which to act and legislate. It is a waste of that precious time, I believe, for a Government to run around looking to create a problem to find a solution for. We should address the problems that we know exist, and those problems that have to be attacked.
Even Lord Pickles, in his evidence, said:
“I did not recommend photo ID”. ––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 16, Q13.]
He also said that fraud
“is not endemic within the system”,––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 8, Q5.]
However, somehow, Lord Pickles has now embraced this voter ID card with the zeal of a convert. It is further evidence of a Government with a solution looking for a problem.
Councillor Golds gave chapter and verse on the problems of postal voting in Tower Hamlets, and he was extremely convincing. Fair play to Peter Golds and the people who he has been working with—they have identified a serious problem—but to try to segue that into pretending that ID cards at polling stations will somehow solve what we saw at Tower Hamlets is frankly nonsense. It is not there.
Brendan O’Hara
I will in a moment. Ailsa Irvine, of the Electoral Commission, admitted that
“we are starting from a high base of public confidence.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 46, Q64.]
There is confidence in this system—that the system works and is sufficiently robust.
Brendan O’Hara
I will in a moment. There is nothing perfect. There is no way on earth that we can stop every sort of crime, but this Government and this Committee should concentrate on identified problems, rather than seeking to find problems and then provide a solution as they see fit. Now, there were two hon. Gentlemen bobbing.
Tom Randall
Just briefly, on Councillor Golds’ evidence, he did make reference to the Jehovah’s Witnesses who had been marked as having voted on the register in the polling station when, of course, they would not have done. I appreciate that it was anecdotal evidence, but does that not go to the heart of how difficult it for someone to realise that they are a victim of electoral fraud? If a non-voter was a victim of personation, they would not go to look for it.
Brendan O’Hara
Nobody on this side of the room is saying that electoral fraud should not be punished. It absolutely should be punished. It should not be tolerated and should never be tolerated. Any victim of it deserves justice. However, that must be evidence-led and proportionate. This is neither.
Peter Gibson
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wish to provide clarity, in respect of the report by Lord Pickles. I have a copy in front of me. Recommendation No. 8 states:
“The Government should consider the options for electors to have to produce personal identification before voting at polling stations. There is no need to be over elaborate; measures should enhance public confidence and be proportional. A driving licence, passport or utility bills would not seem unreasonable to establish identity. The Government may wish to pilot different methods. But the present system is unsatisfactory; perfection must not get in the way of a practical solution.”
Brendan O’Hara
The hon. Gentleman is making my point for me. He did not recommend ID cards. He did not. If he mentioned taking a utility bill, he is not talking about registering for and receiving a voter ID card. As he said, he did not recommend it. In the first bit of evidence, Lord Pickles says he did not recommend voter ID cards.
Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman has made the point, quite rightly, that there is electoral law in place that can be used to prosecute fraud, but we heard in evidence that there is a very high bar for people, not least financially. Prevention is better than prosecution. Preventing electoral fraud from happening in the first place is surely better than trying to prove it has happened and prosecuting.
Brendan O’Hara
At the risk of repeating myself, nobody is saying that we should not root out electoral fraud and that it should not be punished to the full extent of the law, but this Bill, and particularly voter ID cards, will not solve it. If there were a Bill in front of us that said, “We will beef up the Electoral Commission. We will give the police more powers of prosecution. We will allow greater transparency in how we find and prosecute people who are cheating the system,” it would have unanimous support, but the Government are trying to pretend that the introduction of voter ID cards will stop this, and that is simply not the case.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are different types of prevention of electoral fraud? One was outlined in the evidence from Peterborough. The witnesses said they could put up CCTV cameras, which would cost them nothing because they would borrow them from the police. That is a much more proportionate measure to prevent fraud, and there would not be the risk that it would stop people and put up a barrier to voting.
Brendan O’Hara
I could not agree more. We do not support ID cards, but that does not mean we are turning a blind eye to electoral fraud. There are proportionate ways of preventing it. This is not even a way of stopping it. We are not even saying that this is the wrong way to stop electoral fraud; this is nothing. This will achieve virtually nothing.
Cat Smith
The hon. Gentleman is drawing on the evidence of Lord Pickles, who did not say that photo ID cards should be required to prove identity; he also included utility bills. The forms of ID listed in this Bill are very limited. When international examples are given of where ID cards are shown, they are often from countries that have a national ID card, so does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that this may be a back-door way of bringing in an ID card, which I am sure many Government Members would wring their hands at? The Prime Minister himself said that he would eat it if he was ever asked for it. Should the Government not be a bit more up front about their real reasons?
Brendan O’Hara
There is an argument to be had about what the hon. Lady says about the introduction of ID cards. Perhaps the plan is to introduce ID cards via the back door.
The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell spoke about the OSCE report. As I said on Second Reading, if we were inventing an entirely new system from scratch—if democracy was invented tomorrow in the UK—there would be an argument to be had and we could bat back and forth whether to do it, but to impose ID cards on to the system that we have at this stage, with all the democratic history that we have, smacks of something other than what we are being told it is for.
The politics of this is interesting. Rob Connelly, the returning officer from Birmingham, got to the nub of the political argument we are hearing when he said:
“I asked a senior politician…what evidence he had of personation, and his response was, ‘I haven’t actually got any, but I just know it goes on.’”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 55, Q82.]
That sums up the argument that we heard on Second Reading and in Committee this morning. There is no evidence—it is a hunch—and policy cannot be made without evidence. There is no evidence of this. Politicians believe it happens, and therefore we must go and do something about it. We gather the experts—the great and the good—and they tell us that it is minimal and inconsequential: it is neither here nor there. However, the Government decide to plough on regardless of the evidence.
Gavin Millar supported Rob Connolly when he said:
“It is not a problem of any great consequence in our system.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2021; c. 108, Q165.]
He explained that it is actually the most inefficient way to indulge in electoral fraud. The risks are enormous, the chances of detection are much greater and it is such a tiny margin that it will make no difference. The Government are looking in the wrong place, and they are pursuing it on a hunch. He was right to say that the Government should focus on registration instead of voter ID cards.
Cat Smith
The hon. Gentleman is making a point about following the evidence, but should the Government not also follow what is going on in the courts? Is he aware of the case in Braintree, where there was a voter ID trial, of Neil Coughlan, who had no voter ID? The Supreme Court is due to hear that case next year. The Committee might end up legislating on the matter before hearing what could be quite a useful verdict from the courts about the way in which the policy disenfranchises voters.
Brendan O’Hara
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I was unaware of that case, but it does seem to suggest that we are getting ahead of ourselves somewhat.
Moving on, what is the point of an evidence session if we are going to ignore the evidence? I refer the Conservative members of the Committee to the words of Baroness Davidson on voter ID—perhaps the only time her words were wise. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading; it is there for all to see if they wish to go back and find it. Suffice to say, Baroness Davidson was correct in her assessment of voter ID cards in May, and she is correct today.
Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman seems to have a slight contradiction in his opinion. He said that there was minimal voter fraud and that we should take no notice of it. He has picked on one Conservative politician out of hundreds and used that as an argument.
Brendan O’Hara
I rise slowly to my feet, because I have no idea what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. I will sit down as slowly as I rose if he wants to make that point again.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am merely making the point that to dismiss one argument because there are not lots of people coming forward with an allegation, to then pick on one person out of hundreds of Conservatives and say, “Therefore, this is why we should not do it,” seems slightly at odds with the balance of the argument.
Brendan O’Hara
Absolutely not. The idea that I would take any political lead from an unelected baroness is utter nonsense. I simply used her as an illustration of the deep divisions in the Conservative party.
Cat Smith
In the intervention the hon. Gentleman took, he was accused of using as evidence one Conservative politician. Have the Conservative members of the Committee not just taken the example of one Labour constituency party in Tower Hamlets, when there are 650 constituencies?
Brendan O’Hara
A good point well made. What was striking about the evidence session was that Conservative Members were reduced to asking the witnesses leading questions. If it had been a court, the judge would have slapped them down almost immediately. It was reduced to, “Motherhood and apple pie is good. Do you agree?” and “Yes, we do.” It was nonsense. The evidence session showed that voter ID cards are a priority for nobody but this Government.
Almost all the witnesses referred to the need to tighten up postal votes. That was summed up by Gavin Millar, who said that is
“hugely inefficient compared with other forms of fraud that have been perpetrated, particularly since postal voting on demand”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2021; c. 108, Q165.]
The Government are looking in the wrong place. There is no evidence that personation is widespread; that is based purely on anecdote. I went into the evidence sessions believing that the measure was a solution seeking a problem; I came out of them absolutely convinced of it. We will support the Labour party when the Committee divides.
The Chair
Before I call the next speaker, it is not in order to be tediously repetitious. The debate is proceeding extremely slowly. On the lack of evidence and on other points, if I have heard it once, I have heard 100 times. Try to keep speeches to the point and pertinent to clause 1. I call Aaron Bell.
Aaron Bell
I will endeavour to follow your strictures, Sir Edward. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to follow the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. It is also a pleasure to welcome new Committee members, not least the Minister in her new role.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said that the Bill is a solution in search of a problem and that we are looking in the wrong place. The Government are looking everywhere; that is what the Bill is doing. We are looking not only at the issues that he raised about postal voting fraud, but everywhere, including in areas where we know that, because personation is, by definition, a covert activity, the problem is far greater than we can possible expect to see from the numbers reported.
Indeed, as Richard Mawrey said in evidence, the cases that he has tried are undoubtedly the “tip of the iceberg”. That is why the clause is so important. We all strive to get more people to participate, and we all go out and knock on doors to encourage people who have never voted before to vote—ideally, for us—but although participation is important, integrity and confidence are absolutely paramount as well. The constant fearmongering about participation is in marked contrast to the denial of the existing issue of people’s confidence.
I will briefly address the point about America. I know the Bill is not about America, but since it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, I draw the Committee’s attention to a May 2021 academic paper by Cantoni and Pons, published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. I will not elaborate too much, but the title is, “Strict Id Laws Don’t Stop Voters”. They analysed different laws introduced in US different states, and found that
“the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.”
I completely endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell said about Trump: acceptance of the result is a completely different issue from the security of the ballot. However, trying to make out that we are following some American Trump-style approach misses the point and completely misleads the public about what we are proposing. We are proposing a proportionate measure to safeguard the system and address the vulnerability that the Electoral Commission itself has identified. Ailsa Irvine said that “there is a vulnerability” in the system—that is what is being identified.
We have talked about how personation is a covert activity, and that is what the clause is for. In the light of the evidence from Tower Hamlets, from Peterborough and from around the country, it should not come to the point of having to install CCTV, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling said, brave individuals should not have to put their own money on the line, and not get it back, to deal with such cases.
On the pilot data, which was mentioned, the estimate by the Electoral Reform Society, which we should acknowledge is a political lobbying group, were exaggerated and inaccurate. The data from returning officers across all five participating local authorities showed that 340 electors were asked to return with the correct identification and did not subsequently return. Not all 340 people may have been legitimate electors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton pointed out, but the 340 figure represents 0.16% of the votes cast, and the experience in Northern Ireland shows that that will fall as people get used to the system.
We cannot argue, as the Opposition have, that because we have big majorities in this place we do not need voter ID, and then say that voter participation is so crucial that one person’s vote makes a difference. What matters is the overall integrity of the system, and the way to deliver that is everywhere: in the postal vote system, in the proxy vote system and on polling day.
Tom Randall
May I also welcome the Minister to her place. Given that time is short, I shall be brief and make four further points, two of which relate to the evidence.
I would like to recommend some additional reading to the Committee, if they have not read it, which is a report prepared for the Electoral Commission in January 2015 entitled “Understanding electoral fraud vulnerability in Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin communities in England: A view of local political activists”. The report was prepared by Maria Sobolewska, Eleanor Hill and Magda Borkowska of the University of Manchester and Stuart Wilks-Heeg of the University of Liverpool. Neither of those universities nor the Electoral Commission could be accused of being Tory shills.
The authors make some interesting points going into the detail of this problem, including on the question of personation that has been raised a number of times today. They spoke to witnesses and acknowledge that the risk of personation was thought to be significant, with vulnerabilities identified, given the habit that people have of asking others to cast a vote on their behalf and the complex naming systems used in those communities.
The report acknowledges that there must be a trade-off between accessibility to the electoral system and electoral integrity. That notwithstanding, one of a series of recommendations in the report is that some form of voter identification should be introduced. I do recommend that as additional reading.
To return to the point raised at the beginning by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, I agree with her when she talks about being proud of our electoral system and its integrity. The Victorians gave us the secret ballot. While the idea that as a Briton I can walk into a polling station, simply proclaim who I am and then be given my vote—which is my right—is something that I approve of, it perhaps speaks to the system that the hon. Lady would like to exist rather than the system that actually exists.
Cat Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he is talking about rights and I think we both agree that there is something fundamental about that. We are both proud of our British democracy and we are both proud of that right that citizens have to cast a secret ballot, brought to us by the Victorians. On the issue of rights, the Government ran pilots on the voter ID trials, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission warned that if voters became disenfranchised as a result of particularly restrictive requirements, it could violate article 1 of protocol No. 1 to the European convention on human rights, which was incorporated into domestic law in the Human Rights Act 1998.
Given the representations to the Committee, particularly the evidence from Gavin Millar, who said that there would inevitably be challenges to voter ID as incompatible with the European convention on human rights if the Bill was introduced as it currently stands, does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, proud as we are of our British democracy and human rights, there is a potential threat here that the Government should be taking more seriously, so they should be looking into expanding the list of relevant ID?
Tom Randall
That relates to the fourth point that I had planned to make. The hon. Lady also made remarks about these measures being Trumpian in nature, looking to voter suppression in the United States. However, she voted remain, and I know that our colleagues in the Scottish National party want Scotland to be an independent country at the heart of Europe. There are countries like Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy that do require voter ID at polling stations. I am uncertain—
Tom Randall
If I might just finish this point. I am uncertain as to how a measure that is commonplace on the continent will be a violation of the European convention on human rights. I suggest that, as good Europeans, we should support this measure.
Cat Smith
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has moved on to the point about European comparisons because the countries that he referred to have national ID cards that are given out free by the state, and people are used to presenting them to access all kinds of things. In this country we do not have ID cards, we are not asked to produce ID cards, and I am pleased that that is the case. That is part of what makes us British. Does he not agree with me that the voter ID law threatens that proud British tradition? On the examples that he gives of states with ID cards, is that a potential back-door way of bringing in ID cards, and would he support that?
Tom Randall
An electoral card will be issued free of charge. I am sure that between the passage of this legislation and the introduction of that scheme there will be a lot of publicity surrounding it, to make sure that the new system that is to be introduced will be well understood. The Government are used to widespread publicity schemes. I see the point that the hon. Lady makes, but I am sure that can be addressed in the fullness of time.
The point was made that no significant election has been swung or affected by electoral fraud. I gently suggest that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, a London authority only 18 minutes from here on the tube, which has a directly elected Mayor and a multi- million-pound budget, is not insignificant when it comes to elections—it is very significant.
For my final point, I declare an interest as a former chairman of Poplar and Limehouse Conservative Association. I know Councillor Golds personally. I speak to him as a friend as well as a witness to this Committee, and he made a point to me in writing afterwards. I will read the email from him, which stated:
“When we were preparing the grounds for the petition we investigated personation. We were a small, cross party group acting voluntarily and at our own expense. I was doing most of the legal digging and the amount of time required to prove personation would have been enormous. We had evidence via marked registers but quickly found canvassing and potentially obtaining statements would have been incredibly time consuming. People who are disengaged from politics and voting are unlikely to wish to make statements for submission to a court of law. We did refer to some of the worst cases in various statements but personation…was not one of the nine grounds that we concentrated on.”
Tower Hamlets has come up a lot in this debate so far. The absence of personation as the main ground in that case should not be interpreted as meaning that there was no personation in that election. The point is that investigating it is incredibly difficult. The fact that it was volunteers working on it, who stumped up their own money, which they have not got back, is perhaps one reason why that ground in that claim was not gone into in such detail.
Brendan O’Hara
Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would have been helpful in his lengthy evidence session if Peter Golds had actually said that to the Committee, rather than saying it as an afterthought in a private letter? That is surely the whole point of holding an evidence session.
Tom Randall
I wish Councillor Golds had had a whole evidence session to himself, but unfortunately he had to share one and we had to listen to other witnesses, which I shall not go into now, but I think that was an unfortunate timetabling measure.
There is a fundamental weakness in the system as it stands. For that reason I will support this part of the Bill.
Patrick Grady
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I echo the welcomes to the Minister and Members who have joined the Committee.
The phrase “voter ID is a solution in search of a problem” has been heard several times since the start of the Second Reading debate. That is a quote that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute did not want to explicitly attribute to Baroness Davidson, who was once the coming thing in the Tory party. She was going to be the leader or a Minister. She was going to save them all and save the Union. Now that those future leaders of the Conservative party, the 2019 red-wallers, are here arrayed in front of us, demonstrating to the Whips, the Minister and everyone else their value, I am sure they will not be overlooked quite as much in the next reshuffle.
The previous Minister on the Committee made the pertinent point that we must be careful about the use of the word “disenfranchisement”. To disenfranchise someone is to actively take their vote away; where once they were previously eligible to vote, they are now no longer eligible. They made the point that we must be very careful about casually suggesting that voter suppression, which I will get on to later, is the same as disenfranchisement—which is fair enough. However, that also means that we must be quite careful when we use other terms—terms such as “voter fraud”, which has been bandied about on the other side of the House in reference to a whole range of electoral malpractices, some of which we heard about in the evidence sessions. In fact, voter fraud specifically refers to personation and the casting of the ballot.
As has been quoted back several times from the Committee session with Richard Mawrey:
“In Tower Hamlets, as I said, they virtually ticked every box of electoral offence. But for my being rather kind-hearted, they would have ticked the intimidation box as well—they ticked them all. Voter fraud played a very small part, funnily enough,”.––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 14, Q13.]
That is the point about personation. It is a point that has been made repeatedly by hon. Members from Opposition parties, and that has not been challenged or proven false by Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute quoted another witness as saying that personation was an incredibly inefficient way of swinging an election and making oneself the victor. It carries with it an extremely high risk; someone only needs to do it once to be tapped on the shoulder and kicked out of the election campaign and into jail.
Chris Clarkson
Would the hon. Gentleman agree with me that, technical merits of personation aside, any one instance of personation is a negative input into our democratic process? Anybody stealing a vote, misusing a vote or representing themselves as somebody else should be a cause for concern.
Patrick Grady
Absolutely. However, we have repeatedly heard, throughout all the evidence sessions and debates, that when personation has been identified it has been called out and punished, the perpetrators have been brought to justice and, if necessary, candidates have been disqualified and election results overturned. What would swing elections is disincentivising turnout—making it more difficult for marginalised voters to turn out, particularly in marginal constituencies, and putting up barriers to electoral participation. That is exactly what voter identification will do. There have been disputes about how many people do or do not have adequate voter ID, as required under the terms of the Bill, but even the most conservative figure—with a small c and capital C—is that there are at least 2 million people across the United Kingdom without adequate voter ID. At an average, I think that works out at around 3,000 per constituency. There are plenty of us Members sitting on majorities of considerably less than that. It is clear to see the difference that could be made if suddenly those people were unable to cast their votes.
The Minister said right at the start that everybody who wants to vote will have the opportunity to do so. That is just a simple statement of fact. That is the case now; everybody who is currently eligible and wants to vote has the opportunity to do so when an election comes around. What will happen with this Bill is that barriers will be put in their way. What if someone turns up at quarter to 10, on a wet Thursday night, and it turns out they have left their voter ID at home? What if their passport has expired—will that be valid? What if they have recently got married and their surname has changed—what happens in that situation? There are all kinds of barriers that have nothing to do with anyone’s background or minority status.
Cat Smith
I was about to raise the issue of women who marry and need to change their surname on IDs and other documents. However, the hon. Gentleman has triggered in my mind another thought. Kate Robson, who works for me, left the purse containing all her ID documents on the bus. If that had happened on polling day, she would not have applied for the free voter ID as she had a driving licence in her purse—but that purse had been left on the bus. As it happened, all ended well and she was reunited with that document, but it shows that it is not just those who do not have photo ID who would be disenfranchised; so too would those of us who mislay documents. I am sure that all of us in this room are very organised, but people who mislay documents do exist, and they might only remember that it is polling day on their way home from the gym at 9 o’clock, when they will not have time to go back for their ID. A greater number of people will be disenfranchised than just that percentage who do not have ID.
Patrick Grady
Absolutely. It will put up barriers and make that democratic participation more difficult and more challenging.
Tom Randall
On a small point of clarification, under proposed new paragraph (1H), “specified documents” include documents
“regardless of any expiry date”,
so the expired passport would be valid.
Patrick Grady
That is incredibly helpful. People across the country with expired passports will be breathing a sigh of relief, unlike the people across the country who, for whatever reason, do not have passports or who, for all kinds of reasons, find it difficult to make that approach.
We have heard about the pressure that there will be on electoral administrators to deal with the inevitable surge in applications. We have heard about some of the accessibility challenges that will be faced by people with different kinds of impairments when applying for photo documentation. There are all those kinds of barriers. Nobody is questioning the agency or ability of minority communities to apply for voter identification; the point is that many people are already disproportionately without existing forms of voter identification and so are already disincentivised from taking part in the democratic system.
Cat Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous with his time. I feel moved to mention that my grandfather, who sadly is no longer with us, did not have any form of photo ID because he was illiterate. The idea of having to approach the local council and fill in a form in order to get an ID document—he just would have stopped voting. There is a group of electors that we have not talked about so far, either in evidence or in Committee this morning—those constituents that we represent who would be filled with dread by the idea of approaching the council and being asked to fill in a form. They will do that only if it is absolutely essential to their survival. The reality is that my grandad would not have applied for a voter ID card because he would have been too embarrassed to go to the council and confess that he was illiterate.
Patrick Grady
The hon. Member is absolutely right. Precisely those concerns have been raised by Age UK, which quotes the Cabinet Office’s own research as showing that
“2% of people aged over 70, equivalent to 180,000 older people in Great Britain, do not hold any of the forms of identification that the Bill proposes would be accepted when voting…Having to present photographic identification at the polling station would ‘make voting difficult’ for 6% of people over 70, or around half a million people living in Great Britain…4% of people aged over 70…less likely to vote…These figures are likely to be underestimated as the Cabinet Office’s funded research did not include a representative sample of older people in Great Britain.”
A whole range of minority and segregated groups in society will be affected by this.
Chris Clarkson
Just to expand on that point, would the hon. Gentleman say that having to present a vaccine passport in order to use goods and services, for example, would present a barrier to people engaging in the economy?
The Chair
Order. We are not discussing vaccine passports. Let us remain focused on the Bill.
Patrick Grady
Thank you, Sir Edward. I think there is a slight difference between someone voluntarily taking part in different parts of the economy and someone exercising their fundamental right to vote. The Prime Minister himself has not ruled out vaccination certification, so we will wait to hear what those on the Government side of the House have to say about that a couple of weeks down the line.
The point that the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton touched on there is the divergence across these islands. He is perfectly entitled to make that point. It is interesting, because in the devolved areas, rather than making it more difficult for people to vote, we have been making it easier to vote and more proportionate. We will get on to more of this later in the Bill, but in Scotland the franchise has been extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, to all EU nationals with settled status and to refugees, and nobody is being asked to turn up with voter identification in the devolved areas. We will have people on increasingly different franchises—[Interruption.] I am glad this is of such interest to Government Members, because they are supposed to be defenders of the Union, and they want to keep this glorious country, as they see it, together and keep us in a United Kingdom. Actually, what they are doing is increasing divergence and showing that Scotland and Wales can adopt a far more liberal, all-encompassing and participative approach to democracy. Here it is being made more difficult and increasingly narrow. That is a challenge for people who want to protect the Union.
Brendan O’Hara
Scotland extended the franchise to the groups that my hon. Friend mentioned, but one that he did not mention was people in prison with 12 months or less to go on their sentence. Would I be correct in saying that, by extending the franchise, Scotland achieved its higher ever turnout at the elections in May and ensured that people have faith? It is not just about creating rules; it is about creating faith in the system. The Government do not have to go down this draconian ID card route to create faith in the system; they just need people to believe that what they elect is what they get, and Scotland is doing that.
Patrick Grady
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Compare that to the “Oh no, here we go again” response to the sequence of snap elections and uncalled for and unprepared for ballots that have happened in the UK in recent years, because of the utter chaos and incompetence shown by the Conservatives.
My hon. Friend brings me on to my next point, which the Labour spokesperson touched on. We as elected politicians are not impassive observers, as perhaps parliamentarians can be on other aspects of legislation, where we can take an objective view. All of us have an active interest in who elects us and how we get elected. I join the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood in paying tribute to election administration staff in councils up and down the country—later in the Bill we will talk about the role of the Electoral Commission and who gets to mark our own homework. If it has been tough south of the border, it has been even more so north of the border, where there has been another referendum, local elections and the devolved Parliament elections, on top of all the UK-wide ballots and plebiscites that have had to be administered.
I also pay tribute to our party activists and volunteers, as I am sure everybody in this room will—perhaps we can get one point of consensus. They are in many ways the backbone of the electoral process and political engagement of this country. They are the people who stand outside the polling stations in the pouring rain and the blazing sun—sometimes in Scotland that can be within the same 10 or 15 minutes. We can have all four seasons in one day or even just a couple of hours—that is certainly true of the last couple of elections we have had. These people play an incredibly important role. If there was widespread personation, with people turning up in dodgy rain jackets, funny moustaches and thick eyeglasses to repeatedly impersonate other voters, it would kind of be noticed. That is the point of having the system we do.
We have polling agents, counting agents and voluntary observers. That is a hugely important part of trust in the system. It happens at counts as well, when we watch how the ballot papers come out and how they are sorted and so on. We have heard examples of electoral malpractice and intimidation outside polling stations. Exactly: we know about it because it has been witnessed and reported. It has been covered on the news, because it makes for a bit of drama if people are shouting at each other outside a polling station—the cameras like to go and see that. It should not happen, and that is why people have been punished for it.
Cat Smith
Another thing that has been observed outside polling stations in recent elections is really long queues of people turning up just before 10 pm. They are allowed to vote if they are in the queue before 10 pm. If people also have to show ID and have it verified by the polling card, what does the hon. Gentleman think that could do to the queues outside polling stations? How does he think that might incentivise people to actually turn out and vote?
Patrick Grady
There is a bit of a challenge. People do get put off by long queues. Under social distancing in Scotland, the queues were even longer and it was taking even longer to vote. I commend people who are prepared to wait, but imagine the frustration of someone who has waited all that time in a queue and then finds out that they do not have a valid ID, or they thought it was in their pocket, but it turns out it was not, and there is no provision to even cast a provisional ballot, which we may get on to later.
The system that exists just now, pre this Bill, is the system that got us elected. There is a real danger that what is going on here is undermining the confidence in that system. If confidence in the system is undermined, people will simply not turn out at all, irrespective of whether they have a voter identification. They will sit on their hands and say, “You’re all the same—a plague on all your houses! My vote doesn’t make a difference,” and they will not turn out at all.
Fleur Anderson
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s concern that this is a disproportionate Bill and that it will stop people turning out—they will just sit on their hands. We will not know whether they have gone or not. From the research we have on the pilots, there was an indication of a real disparity between different areas, age groups and other groups in terms of the inclination, or disinclination, even to go and vote. For example, in Woking nearly all electors said it would be easy to access ID and they would trundle down with it easily, but in Pendle only seven in 10 people said it would be easy to access. For non-voters, only 88% of people said they would find it easy; for those who vote, it is 95%. That is a real disparity. White electors were more likely than BME electors to think it would be easy to find identification for future elections, by 92% to 87%—another huge disparity. Younger electors, too, were less likely to say they would find it easy to access identification for future elections: 84% for 18 to 34-year-olds, compared with 93% for 35 to 54-year-olds. As a mum of adult children who should be allowed to vote but often cannot find their ID, I agree with the differences there are between different parts of the electorate.
Patrick Grady
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and it is interesting that we have not heard more about the detail of those pilots from the Government. They were their own pilots—it was the Government who ran them. They seem happy to pick up evidence of electoral malpractice in any areas that cause them concern, but less interested in picking up the outcomes from the pilots that they themselves commissioned.
As the hon. Lady mentioned some of the disparities in terms of voting ID, I will pay tribute to Maurice Mcleod, who gave very impressive evidence to the Committee under the most sustained and pressured questioning of any of the witnesses we heard from. He said, and he was quoting the Government’s own data, that
“while 76% of white people hold a form of relevant photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport, when it comes to black people, about half do: 47% do not hold one of those forms of ID.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2021; c. 89, Q134.]
The statistics the hon. Lady quotes from the pilots appear to be borne out by other evidence we have heard.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He may recall that I questioned the witness on that, and he agreed that the evidence from 8,500 respondents to the IFF review was that, in fact, 98% of the population in general have relevant ID, and that when it came to BAME respondents, it rose to 99%. He also agreed with me that on that basis he was somewhat reassured.
Patrick Grady
There we go: that is the benefit of having these evidence sessions, and we should thank, congratulate and treat with respect all the witnesses we heard. I echo the points of order that were made earlier on: I hope we get to have more evidence sessions when it becomes appropriate, so we can hear about the extension to the Bill’s remit that the Government have made.
Brendan O’Hara
Looking back at the evidence given by Maurice Mcleod, it got to the point that the Government are aiming at the wrong target with this Bill. Does my hon. Friend not agree with Maurice Mcleod and, indeed, Gavin Millar, who both said the Government should prioritise a registration drive, increasing participation and opening up? As Maurice Mcleod said:
“I do not really understand why you are not automatically registered. I remember turning 18; you get your national insurance number because going out to work and paying your…tax”.––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2021; c. 88, Q133.]
However, people are not automatically registered. Does my hon. Friend not think this Bill should look at automatic registration rather than seeking to disenfranchise people?
Patrick Grady
Yes. I hope as the Committee progresses we will be able to look at precisely that issue. That brings me quite neatly on to what I hope will be my final point of concern: what is really needed is a massive voter education drive. We need a new wave of civic engagement, helping people to understand the critical role they play in democracy and decision making in this country. As the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said, irrespective of our views on a matter, we as politicians should be able to express those views, and try to convince the voters and win as many of them over to our side of the argument as possible. That is what is vastly needed, and that need for civic education and massive voter registration drives in order to encourage as many people as possible to take part came out in quite a lot of the evidence, as well. That requires us to live up to our promises, not make false promises and pretend that things are going to happen.
The Chair
I am sure that the next speaker will want to give a short speech based on the principle of voter ID.
Paul Bristow
I will keep my remarks brief. I just want to take hon. Members on a bit of a journey to Peterborough.
Paul Bristow
No, no—a very brief one. Hon. Members have doubted the evidence of voter fraud and personation, as a very small thing, but I encourage them to look at some of the evidence we have from Peterborough. When walking down busy streets in Peterborough, we often see large crowds gathering, with people chanting, singing and handing out various leaflets. That is not on a Saturday when we are watching Peterborough United; that is on a Thursday afternoon, when people are marching towards the polling station. We have had evidence that a number of councillors and activists in Peterborough who have gone to prison as a result of voter fraud are now acting as tellers and counting agents, participating in the democratic process.
A lot of people have talked about the advantages of the CCTV that was offered by the chief executive of Peterborough City Council. I ask hon. Members who have said that this was a good thing why they feel it was necessary for Peterborough City Council to install CCTV at polling stations. It was there in order to combat personation.
Brendan O’Hara
Does the hon. Gentleman not believe that Peterborough council has the right to implement a bespoke solution for what it may or may not perceive to be a particular problem, but that having a blanket ID card from Truro to Thurso and beyond is completely and utterly disproportionate? If Peterborough council wants to introduce CCTV, then let it. I imagine that Argyll and Bute Council has no intention of introducing CCTV or anything else, because we believe our democracy is quite robust.
Paul Bristow
The people of Argyll and Bute probably have great satisfaction with, and faith in, their electoral processes, down to the quality of their Member of Parliament. I am sad to say that in Peterborough, people perhaps do not have that faith, so CCTV is there in order to give people faith in the security and integrity of the ballot. That is the point I am trying to make, because I think that rather than suppress democracy, voter ID cards give people greater confidence in the electoral process and the idea that their vote will count. We hear that not just in Peterborough, but in Tower Hamlets, Oldham, Birmingham, Slough, and across the country. These are not isolated incidents: they happen across the country, and they undermine our democracy.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Elections Bill (Sixth sitting)
Wednesday 22nd September 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 September 2021 - (22 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Kemi Badenoch)
To say that this has been a lively debate would be seriously understating the passion and arguments made by Members on both sides of the Committee. Speaking as a former Treasury Minister, it is a refreshing change from annual Finance Bill Committees, where I am used to saying lots of things to silence and often bemusement from Back Benchers. That has been a real change and I have very much enjoyed listening to the arguments.
I want to thank all Members who participated in the debate for making so many interesting points. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme, for Peterborough, for Heywood and Middleton, and for Gedling, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell for making brilliant points in their speeches, with which I wholeheartedly agree. They all said things far better than I could, given how new I am to the brief. I also enjoyed the interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, the hon. Member for Glasgow North, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. I did not agree with the Opposition Members’ points, but they were well argued. I still think that they are wrong but I admire the passion of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. This is clearly a brief she knows very much about and it is nice to see that level of engagement with the topic. However, a few points were made in the debate that I wish to reply to; I will not speak for very long.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North talked about weaknesses in the research. I know the moment has moved on, but I want to emphasise that the Cabinet Office’s research is the most comprehensive to date and is nationally representative. It shows that 99% of people from ethnic minority backgrounds surveyed owned an accepted form of identification. It seemed from his speech that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute felt this was a Bill about introducing a new voter ID card. Yes, that is part of it, but it is mainly about photographic identification. I felt that there was often conflation between people not having photographic identification and needing a voter ID card as opposed to everybody else needing one. That is not the case. I remind the hon. Gentleman that only those without existing documents need a voter card.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood talked about this being a new case for identity cards. I remind her that the coalition Government scrapped the last Labour Government’s plan for ID cards in 2010 and we have no plans for identity cards. The 2018 and 2019 voter identification pilots were delivered with a voluntary, locally issued notification. There is no compulsion here and that same model of an optional free voter card is what we are going to introduce.
Finally, I just wanted to reject completely the accusation from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood of voter suppression. This is a political topic; we are talking about elections and MPs get very lively. We enjoy having these discussions, but it is important not to alarm people when a simple procedural Bill is being put through. People are disenfranchised if their vote has been used by someone who should not be doing so. It does not seem to be something that is of concern to Opposition Members, but we take that very seriously. As I said in my opening speech, just because someone’s house has not been burgled does not mean they should not lock the door. We can take precautions for things, even if their likelihood, depending on geography, is more or less. We should also have something uniform in bringing in this sort of Bill. We cannot just do something for Tower Hamlets and then wait until something happens in another borough.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Would it be appropriate at this point to ask some specific questions? I hope the Minister can respond about the application process for the voter ID cards. Obviously, it would be administered by local councils, but will there be a core standard of expectations of, for instance, the hours councils will be expected to offer the service? Will people have to apply in person,
Kemi Badenoch
I think that those are things that we can work out as we progress. We all know that those sorts of details would not end up in a Bill such as this one. We also need to be able to give flexibility. What we can say is that we want to encourage as many people as possible to take up these cards, and we will do whatever we can to ensure that that is the case.
Let me go back to the point that I was making about voter suppression. We hear again and again, particularly from Labour, that any change to boundaries or elections is all about keeping voters away and gerrymandering. I completely and utterly reject that. I was not a Member in 2014, but I remember that Labour claimed that the roll-out of individual voter registration in the country was going to suppress voters. Labour Members said that it was terrible, that we should not do it and that we should instead allow the head of household to register everyone. As we said earlier, that was about bringing things into line with Northern Ireland, and it is worth mentioning that the electoral register in the 2019 general election was at its highest-ever level. The last thing that Labour said was going to be suppressing voters did not do that, and I am absolutely confident, given all the evidence we have seen and heard, that this will not do so either.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but she is deviating from the point I am making about voter suppressions. The point I was making is that the last thing we did, which Labour claimed was going to suppress voters, turned out not to do so. We have never heard any acknowledgment from the Opposition that it was actually a good thing to do and strengthened our democracy. On the point about registration, the hon. Lady will know that I have just come to this brief. We can deal with the Government’s plans, and what I will be doing over the next few years, outside the debate on clause stand part.
The claims about voter suppression are bogus. They have been shown to be false by the Northern Ireland experience and the 2018-19 pilot. There is no reason why we should not go through with this, which is why I urge all Members to let the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 24, in schedule 1, page 63, line 2, leave out from “the” to end of line 22 and insert “Electoral Commission.”
This amendment would make the Electoral Commission, rather than returning officers, responsible for producing and administering electoral identity documents.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26, in schedule 1, page 63, line 29, leave out “A registration officer” and insert “The Electoral Commission”.
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 24.
Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 63, line 30, leave out “registration officer” and insert “Electoral Commission”.
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 24.
Amendment 28, in schedule 1page 63, line 34, leave out “a registration officer” and insert “the Electoral Commission”.
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 24.
Amendment 29, in schedule 1, page 63, line 35, leave out “officer” and insert “Electoral Commission”.
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 24.
Amendment 30, in schedule 1, page 63, line 37, leave out “officer” and insert “Electoral Commission”.
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 24.
Amendment 31, in schedule 1, page 64, line 3, leave out “a registration officer” and insert “the Electoral Commission”.
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 24.
Amendment 33, in schedule 1, page 65, line 1, leave out from “the” to end of line 3 and insert “Electoral Commission.”
This amendment would make the Electoral Commission, rather than returning officers, responsible for producing and administering anonymous elector’s documents.
Amendment 35, in schedule 1, page 65, line 10, leave out “A registration officer” and insert “The Electoral Commission”.
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 33.
Amendment 36, in schedule 1, page 65, line 11, leave out “registration officer” and insert “Electoral Commission”.
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 33.
Amendment 37, in schedule 1, page 65, line 15, leave out “a registration officer” and insert “the Electoral Commission”.
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 33.
Amendment 38, in schedule 1, page 65, line 16, leave out “officer” and insert “Electoral Commission”.
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 33.
Amendment 39, in schedule 1, page 65, line 18, leave out “officer” and insert “Electoral Commission”.
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 33.
Amendment 40, in schedule 1, page 65, line 21, leave out “a registration officer” and insert “the Electoral Commission”.
This amendment is contingent on Amendment 33.
I remind Members—this is important—that the scope of this debate is the series of related proposals to make the Electoral Commission, rather than returning officers, responsible for electoral identity documents, so can we keep to that subject and not stray into other countries?
Fleur Anderson
Thank you very much, Sir Edward, and I welcome the Minister to her place.
Every vote clearly counts, and I think we can all agree on that. For example, in the Derby City Council election earlier this year, Darley ward was won by one vote. That one vote changed who was in charge and who had the majority on the council, moving it towards a Conservative group. Government Members would be happy about that, but the main point is that each vote counts, so when looking at this Bill, we have to ask whether this is a disproportionate measure that is more likely to stop people voting and being able to cast their one vote—all the votes count—and whether it brings in far too many bureaucratic barriers while not stopping the main problem with our elections. As shown by the result of the voter ID pilot evaluation, most people think that low turnout is a much bigger issue in our elections than any issues about fraud.
Amendment 24 changes the overall control of the central system to have the Electoral Commission working in conjunction with local authorities, rather than each local authority running its own electoral changes. That would ensure much more consistency across the country in delivering the provisions of this Bill and the capacity of local authorities to deliver them, because they would be working in conjunction with the Electoral Commission, and it would give the Commission an additional set of powers to work with local authorities. The amendment tries at least to mitigate some of the worst parts of bringing in electoral ID. Economies of scale will produce cheaper, better and more consistent outcomes, delivering an ID card that everyone can get as easily as possible and when they need it, which I think we would all agree is the outcome we want. With something as precious as our democracy, there is simply no room for irregularities, disparities or differences between local areas in how well electoral identity documents are produced, which will inevitably be the case if this monumental task is left solely to local authorities to do in different ways and to administer on their own.
This amendment asks the Minister to look further into the issue of whether local authorities should carry out this task within a centralised system. Looking at the Northern Ireland example—we will be looking at that example a lot during our consideration of the Bill in Committee—this service is centrally administered by the Electoral Office there, so this amendment would bring us in line with best practice in Northern Ireland, where they are 20 years ahead on this issue. As we heard last week from the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, that set-up has been relatively successful in ensuring consistency and driving down costs over time, and with the cost of delivering voter ID currently estimated at £120 million, that surely has to be a very important issue. It is clear that it is cheaper and more efficient to have a centralised system, so I do not know why the Bill does not seek to embed such an example of best practice.
When the Minister responds, would she tell us how she intends to ensure consistency and parity between local authorities in delivering this Bill? How will she prevent a postcode lottery of provision, whereby some councils are able to provide free IDs in one way, and other councils—perhaps due to the higher, unmanageable cuts that they have faced—do not have the staff or resources, or decide to resource things differently, leading to a difference in delivery? Would she also tell us whether an ID card from one local authority will be transferable to another local authority? If it is not, that will be a barrier. I am especially thinking about people in my constituency who move about within London quite frequently, who may not know they have moved between boroughs and, facing an election, would bring a card issued by another local authority to the polling station. Can that card be used from local authority to local authority?
Turning to the issue of capacity, there is a huge danger and concern that if this Bill is passed without significant amendment, local electoral registrations teams will be crushed under the weight of the additional administrative burden. We saw this in the pilot: the local authority was asked to develop an IT system, and obviously it is going to make much more sense to have a central IT system, so that electoral registration officers do not have to come up with their own IT system and then work out all the ways and means by which they are going to deliver this Bill without help from the Electoral Commission. That is why this amendment seeks to put the Commission in that role.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that local authorities are best placed to do that as they are on the ground and have the experience of issuing concessionary bus passes and disability blue badges?
Fleur Anderson
That is an important point. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is why I said that it must be delivered by the Electoral Commission in conjunction with local authorities. Local authorities know the best place to open up their surgeries, or wherever they will be delivering the cards. They know the best times and the best ways to do it locally, so having a national system that is delivered locally in conjunction with local authorities would work best. I agree that there has to be local provision, because local authorities know their local people best.
It is important to place this issue in the context of the past 10 years. From 2010 until the onset of the pandemic, local authorities lost 60p out of every £1 that the Government provided to spend on local services. Already cash-strapped councils will suddenly be expected to oversee and administer hundreds of thousands of photo ID cards, in addition to processing last-minute applications. We saw in the pilot and know from experience that, unlike us, a lot of people do not spend a lot of time thinking about elections; they think about elections on the day. There was a huge surge of additional applications in the run-up to the election, so there needs to be surge capacity, including on the day itself. Will councils be adequately resourced to do that? Will they have recourse to the Electoral Commission to get the support they need to deliver the cards?
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
What was the hon. Lady’s reaction to the evidence we heard from Gillian Beasley, the chief executive of Peterborough City Council, and the returning officer of Birmingham City Council, who both said that they felt well placed to administer this change?
Fleur Anderson
I was as surprised as the witnesses from Peterborough and Birmingham councils when the chief electoral officer from Northern Ireland said that she needed 70 additional staff during the election period. Up until then, the evidence from Birmingham and Peterborough was that we would need a handful of additional staff through the year to give out ID cards, and then a surge, but to hear that 70 additional staff were needed in Northern Ireland was, I think, illuminating and concerning for some of the council staff who were giving evidence. It is a good point, well made.
Will the Government resource our local councils to deliver this policy? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no cuts to frontline services because of the need to transfer resourcing to the production and delivery of ID cards? All year round, young people especially will be getting this card. At the moment, they have to buy a provisional licence to be able to go to a nightclub, so they will definitely want this card. It is a free resource all year round, so there will be demand for it all year round, but in the run-up to an election there will obviously be an additional surge. Will that fall on the local councils? Can it be guaranteed that Government funding will cover that? Local authorities and electoral registration officers will potentially be burdened with the additional time and money required to enfranchise 35 million overseas voters, at the same time as creating a whole new requirement for processing free voter ID cards for domestic voters, and that is on top of the Boundary Commission changes and all the other burdens being put on our electoral registration officers.
On top of that, the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, by its very nature, creates uncertainty around the timing of general elections, as the Prime Minister will be able to choose the date. The extremely short timetable in the lead-up to elections, as well as plans to shorten that window, has the potential to completely bury the administrative system behind elections, which will potentially result in those very precious electoral ID cards not being given out and people not being able to vote.
Local election authorities are already discovering that there is an increasing burden, and all the returning officers in the May 2019 voter ID pilots had to recruit extra staff, so it is not controversial to say that others will have to do so. It is not always straightforward. Mr Connelly from Birmingham City Council told us in evidence last week:
“As it is, we struggle to recruit and retain staff, who come to the polling station literally for one day a year.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 61, Q96.]
Recruiting and retaining staff all year round will be a challenge. All those staff will need to be trained, and that requires more time and money.
This Bill needs to guarantee two things. First, it needs to guarantee that the responsibility for delivering the voter ID programme falls on a central body that ensures consistency across the country. The amendment would make it the Electoral Commission. The responsibility should not be squarely on the shoulders of local returning officers and electoral registration officers, who are already stretched to their limit.
Secondly, the Bill needs to guarantee that local electoral authorities are properly resourced and given what they feel they need to carry out their new duties and responsibilities. During the evidence session I was concerned to hear that local authorities had not already been asked for their estimates of what that would cost. The Government cannot yet know what it will cost to fund that adequately because local authorities have not been asked. If they are not properly funded and staffed, they will collapse under the weight of the new electoral regime; it will not work.
In her response, I would like the Minister to assure not just me but returning officers and registration officers up and down the country that she understands the concerns and limited capacity of local election registration teams. I would like her to guarantee that they will be given all the resources that they will need, and to emphasise that no frontline services will be cut.
I should also be grateful if the Minister would shed some light on the following questions. Will there be a national IT system for producing the ID cards? What will be the role of the Electoral Commission in supporting local authorities as they gear up to deliver this? How much will one elector ID cost the taxpayer? We heard that, in Northern Ireland, costs differed when production was outsourced and when it was insourced, but what is the estimate for the rest of the UK?
Has the Minister consulted local authorities? I know that she has not been in her place for very long, but have there been consultations with local authorities about how elector IDs will be administered and physically printed? Will local authorities need special printing facilities, for example, or will a normal colour printer be sufficient? Such things will make a big difference to local authorities. Will voters have their photos taken at the local authority when applying for the card? How will that work? Will women wearing face coverings be forced to take them off, and has that been built into how the system will be administered?
The evidence that we have heard so far demonstrates convincingly that a centralised approach to administering voter ID is cheaper, is more consistent and efficient, ensures that local authorities will not be pushed over the edge but can deliver the system, and ensures that every single person who can vote is able to vote. I hope that the Minister will take amendment 24 seriously and commit at least to embedding these principles in the Bill and the guidelines that follow.
Kemi Badenoch
I will respond to the hon. Lady’s points first before coming to the substantive reason that the Government cannot support amendment 24.
The hon. Lady asked how we will ensure consistency in provision between local authorities, and my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington and for Peterborough made very good points on that. The broader point is that local authorities have to administer very complicated elections anyway. The hon. Lady knows that in London elections there are multiple things happening at the same time, and London can cope. Local authorities do not need to worry about the support that they will get to deliver this. In me they have a Local Government Minister who will be very much on top of these issues.
The hon. Lady asked a lot of technical questions—about how the cards would be printed and so on. I am afraid that I cannot answer those today, but those are things that we shall be working towards. The hon. Lady asked whether ID cards would be transferrable from one local authority to another. They will be.
Interestingly, the hon. Lady acknowledged that there might be a surge in demand for the ID cards because of young people wanting to use them to go to the pub, but it is important to clarify that they are not a form of free identification. They are for electors who do not have existing photo identification, and they will not include date of birth.
Amendment 24 would mean that the responsibility for producing and administering the voter card and the anonymous elector’s document would rest with the Electoral Commission rather than with electoral registration officers, as the draft Bill provides. We cannot support the amendment, because the Electoral Commission is an advisory and regulatory body; it is not an administrative one. It does not have the experience or capacity to carry out that function. To take that away from local government, which has been doing that for centuries, and pass it to the Electoral Commission would be completely wrong. Such an approach would represent a significant shift in the way we deliver elections. How can the commission guide and oversee a process that it participates in the delivery of? The Electoral Commission will play a key role in communicating the change to voters ahead of polling day, and must be able to focus on fulfilling those existing duties. I am not in a position to make those changes to the implementation of the policy. As I said, I have every faith in local government to develop and deliver local services that meet the needs of their communities, so we will not support the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind Members that the next amendment relates to places in which people can apply for voter ID, so again it is quite narrowly focused.
Cat Smith
I beg to move amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 63, line 22, at end insert—
“(2A) The registration officer must take steps to ensure that a person may apply for an electoral identity document in the following locations in the relevant local area—
(a) local government office;
(b) library;
(c) GP’s surgery;
(d) Member of Parliament’s constituency office.”
This amendment would enable people to apply for an electoral identity document at a range of places in a local area.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 34, in schedule 1, page 65, line 3, at end insert—
“(2A) The registration officer must take steps to ensure that a person may apply for an anonymous elector’s document in the following locations in the relevant local area—
(a) local government office;
(b) library;
(c) GP’s surgery;
(d) Member of Parliament’s constituency office.”
This amendment would enable people to apply for an anonymous elector’s document at a range of places in a local area.
Cat Smith
The amendment would enable people to apply for the free electoral identity document at a range of places within a local area. The amendment, and the related amendment, would widen the responsibility for administering the electoral identity card to include libraries, GP surgeries, local government offices and the constituency offices of Members of Parliament. Under the change, other public services would be able to promote and administer the registration for free electoral IDs. For example, people could hand their form in and be issued with the card at a jobcentre while doing some other activity. The same could apply to GP surgeries, where patients could fill in a form while they waited for their appointment.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
It is an interesting suggestion to use GP surgeries in that way. Has there been any consultation with the General Medical Council on the views of general practitioners about their being used in that manner?
Cat Smith
Absolutely none whatsoever—[Laughter.] The purpose of the amendment is to make the point that the Bill is very prescriptive about the locations at which one can apply for a free electoral ID, but there are no requirements on when, and on what days of the week, that place would have to be open, or whether one would have to attend in person or could apply by post. There are so many gaping holes in the legislation. The purpose of my amendment is to provoke a discussion about whether we can make applications for free ID cards a little more accessible. It is somewhat murky at the moment.
Expanding the list of places where one could apply for an electoral ID would also widen the opportunities for a publicity or advertisement campaign to inform electors about the change in Government policy to require ID to vote, and potentially allow people to think about it before an election comes around. For instance, someone waiting for a GP appointment who sees a sign on the wall saying that this is a location at which they could apply for a voter ID card might think, “Well, I’ll do it now.” That might take pressure off the administration officers at local councils. We heard in evidence about the rush that happens just before elections take place.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I see that the Labour party’s amendment includes
“Member of Parliament’s constituency office”
as one of the locations. There is usually a distinction between party political resources and parliamentary resources. For example, some MPs share their office with their local Conservative association; I imagine there are similar arrangements with the Labour party. On the basis of her amendment, would the hon. Lady be happy for a member of the public to pick up their electoral ID card from the office of their local Conservative association? Surely that is a blurring of the lines, which is what the Opposition are trying to avoid.
Cat Smith
I am glad to have provoked this debate. I suppose I was thinking about my own constituency office, which is not shared with a political party. When we receive our budget from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, it is very clear that we are not meant to use our IPSA-funded office for party campaigning, and that was very much in my mind. But are we not trusted parts of our community? We sign passport forms and verify identities in other ways. It is meant to promote the idea that we are those trusted individuals, and perhaps we could make it more accessible on an individual level.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The hon. Lady makes the point that it is not uncommon for any of us to verify a passport application for our constituents. All that we are verifying in that situation is a likeness, and the amendment only refers to applying for ID cards at our offices. I do not think anyone is suggesting that MPs’ offices would be issuing them.
The other commendable aspect of the amendment is that it links to a discussion that we will get to later in our scrutiny of the Bill, about automatic voter registration, and that is about being able to apply to vote in the first place. For those of us that want to promote that principle, it makes sense that if we have to accept that voter IDs will be issued, they should be made as accessible as possible, precisely to achieve the kind of increase in participation that everybody seems to agree is worthwhile.
Cat Smith
I agree wholeheartedly with the points made by the hon. Gentleman. Will voters be able to apply for electoral IDs online, regardless of who they are applying to or who is printing it? Will the application form be available online or will it be paper-only? Does the Department have any expectation of how long an application process will take? Will there be any minimum standards? Will the ID card be delivered to the elector’s home address, or will they have to come in person to collect it?
The amendment not only demonstrates the importance of making free electoral ID cards as accessible as possible, but gives us the opportunity to explore whether local authorities have the capacity to administer those IDs, on top of administering the election, given the backdrop of cuts to local authorities over the last decade. A point was made earlier about councils administering other forms of identity documents, but in two-tier council areas that is not always the case. In Lancashire, for example, the county council administers blue badges, but the borough or city council—the second-tier council—would administer electoral IDs. It is important to recognise the diversity across these islands in the way that local government is organised, because there are slight differences and responsibilities lie in different places. As we see the patchwork of devolution in England develop, we shall increasingly see local authorities having very different powers.
Returning to the amendments, local authorities need to have clarity about what they are being asked to do and how that would work. Is there any opportunity to ask other public bodies to support their work, in order to take the burden off our electoral administrators? The Association of Electoral Administrators has already expressed its concern about the huge burden of such a technical administrative task being placed on already overstretched local authorities. Local authorities are being expected to deliver photo ID cards, alongside the additional burden of registering millions of new overseas electors, on top of boundary changes. That is an awful lot of work.
Can the Minister understand the concern here, and will she provide some assurances to our dedicated electoral returning officers up and down these islands? Voting should not be a postcode lottery; there should be equality wherever we are. We must see measures introduced to ensure that obtaining an elector card is as easy as possible. These may include expanding the number of locations at which voters can obtain a card and measures to ensure consistency in administering the scheme in different locations.
Kemi Badenoch
Amendment 25 would require registration officers to ensure that eligible electors could make an application for an electoral voter identity document at a specified list of locations—a local government office, library, GP surgery or Member of Parliament’s constituency office. We cannot agree to the amendment, because it is too prescriptive—needlessly so. The Government share the aim of ensuring that the process for applying for these documents is highly accessible, but the proposed amendment is poorly thought out. Registration officers have the responsibility and local knowledge to identify the most suitable locations for voters to access the voter card process. They must be allowed to exercise that expertise and responsibility. They are best placed to understand their local community and the needs of voters and will have the local knowledge and expertise to ensure that the voter card process works for all voters. I think that answers the questions from the hon. Lady and will reassure her. Registration officers are the ones who know what is happening on the ground. We have every confidence that they will be able to deliver this.
The proposed locations may be suitable in some areas. However, without local knowledge they could disrupt other services and at the same time fail to address the needs of voters, whose preferences and characteristics are likely to be best understood by their own local authority registration officer. That local knowledge and expertise, as well as the diligence with which registration officers fulfil their legal responsibilities to electors, has been proven time and again with the successful delivery of a wide range of electoral events.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood asked whether electors would be able to apply for a local voter card. The amendment would place a requirement on electoral registration officers to act in locations over which they have no control and where the owners or managers could refuse to comply. That is another reason why we cannot support it. There could be many reasons why those responsible for such buildings might not want to act as a venue for applications, and there has been no consideration of that or investigation of issues that could arise, which leads to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland was making. A GP surgery may not wish to increase footfall through their buildings during flu season, as it could lead to an increase in infections among vulnerable patients.
The amendment would also place a requirement on those locations and their staff to allow such applications to be made, raising a number of questions about someone’s rights to access such a location for that purpose. It may be that someone is excluded from the premises for good reasons, or there may be reasons why right of access should not exist to a particular location. The requirement of GP surgeries in particular cannot be supported; it will place an unnecessary additional administrative burden on them and draw focus away from their healthcare duties.
The question of how electors will be able to apply for a local voter card is very important and I completely understand the need to look into it. The detail of voter cards and anonymous elector documents will be issued through secondary legislation, so we will have further opportunities to discuss it, but it is important that we get the details right both for voters and for those who administer our elections. We are and will be working closely with a range of stakeholders to develop and refine the necessary detail. I will update the House on the progress with that as soon as we are in a position to. It will be vital for electors to know how and where to apply for a voter card if they need one. The hon. Lady is right to bring that up. Awareness-raising campaigns delivered by the Electoral Commission will ensure that voters are aware of the new requirements and they will have sufficient time to prepare. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendment.
Cat Smith
The Minister has addressed some of my concerns. My amendment is probing and I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I hope the Minister can recognise that it is not very satisfactory for many of these questions to be answered in secondary legislation. It would be helpful for the Committee’s deliberation if at some point she could at least indicate whether it will be possible to make applications online or whether they will have to be made offline. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fleur Anderson
I beg to move amendment 32, in schedule, page 64, line 27, at end insert
“though that period may not be less than 15 years from the day on which it is issued.”
This amendment would mean that an electoral identity document would be valid for at least 15 years.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 41, in schedule 1, page 66, line 5, at end insert
“though that period may not be less than 15 years from the day on which it is issued.”
This amendment would mean that an anonymous elector’s document would be valid for at least 15 years.
I remind Members that these amendments are about the period of validity of the voter ID card.
Fleur Anderson
Amendment 32 looks at the detail of how long an election ID card would be valid, which is important to know. Obviously, this will be coming out in secondary legislation, but it is important to know whether there will be an annual expectation to renew the ID card, or whether it will be valid for five, 10 or 15 years. The amendment suggests 15 years, but if the Government are open to the card being valid for longer, we would be supportive.
The reasoning behind the amendment is simple: in the real world, voter ID will be a barrier to voting for many people, and it will cost the taxpayer a significant amount of money, so the number of times that electors should be expected to apply for the card should be at an absolute minimum. Making these documents valid for 15 years is a reasonable and sensible proposal. A passport needs renewing every 10 years, so it is not at all unreasonable to push this further, to 15 years. It will come round quickly enough, and it is worth noting that such a period would cover only three general elections.
Chris Clarkson
I recently renewed my passport, and it was quite heartbreaking not being able to use the same photo, because I have changed quite a bit in the past 10 years. Given that the purpose of this is to issue photo identity, does the hon. Lady agree that people change physically over the course of 15 years? A young person who registers at the age of 18 will look considerably different at the age of 33.
Fleur Anderson
Some of us will change more than others. A balance needs to be found between renewing too frequently, which could be a barrier to voting, and recognising that people’s appearance changes over time. That is why people over 18 have to renew their passports every 10 years, but I think 15 years would be far more reasonable.
Cat Smith
The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton has triggered a thought in my mind, because we were told in Committee this morning that a passport, even one that has expired, will still be classed as valid ID. A passport is valid for 10 years. If it has expired, it could be 15, 20 or 25 years old. Does that not create some confusion for polling clerks?
Fleur Anderson
In Northern Ireland, people can take an expired form of photo ID and it will still count, so there is no limit there. A limit of 15 years does not apply in Northern Ireland, so perhaps a longer period of time should be looked at. It would be good to know the Minister’s thinking on that.
Mandating renewal of these documents any less than every 15 years would have a huge and disproportionate impact on groups that are already vulnerable to disenfranchisement, and it would only increase the costs and administrative burdens on local authorities—as we have already discussed, they are substantial. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has previously warned the Government that
“voter ID will have a disproportionate impact on voters with protected characteristics”,
and this could increase that opportunity. We saw with the Windrush scandal how some communities struggled to provide official documentation, which had severe consequences. The EHRC has warned that if voters were
“disenfranchised as a result of restrictive identification requirements”,
this could violate article 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights.
The LGBTQ+ community are at risk of disenfranchisement and have been in contact with Members about the Bill. Stonewall is concerned that such proposals could prevent many LGBTQ+ voters, as well as voters from other marginalised groups, from engaging fully and fairly in democratic processes, and we should all be concerned about the issues that it raises.
Chris Clarkson
Could the hon. Lady develop her thinking on that? There are at least four pieces of photo ID in my wallet, and it will be no surprise to anybody here that I am very gay.
Fleur Anderson
For many trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming people, the photograph, name and/or gender marker on their legal documents may not reflect their appearance or gender identity, which goes back to the earlier point about changing identity. The introduction of voter ID could inadvertently result in such people being turned away from voting stations or simply deciding not to vote, for fear of this happening. They may not want to apply for the card. Of course, the argument against this is the same for some groups—for example, members of the trans community may significantly change appearance.
Stonewall helpfully points out that the solution is not to put people through the process of applying for voter ID before every election, but to roll out training to presiding officers and related staff to ensure that they operate in a manner that is LGBTQ+ inclusive; to put in place specific measures to ensure that LGBTQ+ people can vote; and to ensure that any equality impact assessment of such measures specifically includes the needs and experiences of trans people, gender-non-conforming people and anyone who is concerned about their appearance being on an identity card that must be shown when they go to vote.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Given that the Committee has accepted, after a Division, the necessity of voter ID, surely the hon. Lady’s suggestion of a 15-year period does not help deal with the point she is raising. The more up-to-date ID somebody has, the less likely they are to have such problems at the polling station.
Fleur Anderson
With our amendments, the Opposition are trying to mitigate the worst impact of having a voter ID. Frequently having to re-apply for a voter ID card will have a disproportionately bad impact, potentially stopping people from voting. I do not think any of us want to see that. This is about getting the right balance; is three, five, 10, 15, 20 or 50 years the right balance? I will be interested to hear the Minister’s views. It would be out of step with best practice to require voter ID cards to be frequently renewed, and there is also a disproportionate cost. How much should administering them cost?
Peter Gibson
Does the hon. Lady consider that 10-year periods for a British passport or driving licence are perfectly acceptable and modest?
The Chair
I think Fleur Anderson was speaking. There might also have been an intervention going on.
Fleur Anderson
Thank you very much, Sir Edward, and I thank the hon. Member for Darlington for his memorable intervention—I certainly remembered it—on whether we should match 10-year passports, and whether that would be easier for people to remember. That might be part of the Government’s thinking. I would like to know what their thinking is. Can the Minister confirm how long the free elector ID card will be valid for? Are there plans for that? Does she agree that a free elector ID must last more than one parliamentary cycle or risk disenfranchising people by asking them to reapply between elections, or even at every single election? Finally, what is her policy on ID card renewal?
Kemi Badenoch
Amendments 32 and 41 would mean that voter cards and anonymous elector documents would be required to be valid for a period of 15 years from the date of issue, and I am afraid we cannot agree to that. Primarily it is important that the documents are renewed on a regular basis to ensure that they remain a good likeness of the holder, as the Bill states. I note, however, as other Members have mentioned in interventions, that driving licences and passports are typically renewed every 10 years. The hon. Member for Putney makes a good point, but we are considering the most appropriate time before expiry. We will bring forward our proposals in secondary legislation, which will then need to be approved by Parliament through the affirmative procedure.
Hon. Members have been judicious in trying to open up the list of specified forms of identification to include insecure methods, but they are limiting the flexibility of the method upon which those without access to a form of accepted identification could rely. For example, the amendments would prevent any consideration of an electoral returning officer issuing any kind of temporary voter ID card or anonymous elector documents, should that be appropriate. As such, that would work against being able to provide mechanisms to support people who need a short-term solution to showing identification, which I know the Opposition are particularly concerned about.
The hon. Lady raised inclusivity. We will of course ensure that the process is inclusive. The Government take those issues very seriously—I see that as the Minister for Equalities. We are doing a lot of work in terms of ID documents and gender recognition certificates to support trans people. As we have made changes throughout the last 12 months or so, we are seeing applications increase. Often all the things that we say will stop applications and participation are measures that improve and increase it.
I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me, because I did not have enough time to write down her last question and so have forgotten it. I hope that I have been able to address some of the issues that she raised. However, in order to maximise the options that we can consider as we take forward our implementation plans, the Government cannot support this amendment; it is just too restrictive for the Bill.
Fleur Anderson
I am disappointed that the Government will not support the amendment. I hope to see it resurface in secondary legislation and to see at least 15 years as the length of time. First we need to see some research into the impact of different renewal dates and the cost of renewing to be informing the Government’s decision. This was a probing amendment, so we will not push it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Cat Smith
I beg to move amendment 42, in schedule 1, page 66, line 5, at end insert—
“13BF Application for electoral identity document on Government website: Great Britain
The Secretary of State must ensure that a person eligible for an electoral identity document under section 13BD or an anonymous elector’s document under section 13BE is able to apply for that document on the gov.uk website.”
The amendment would allow voters to sign up for free electoral ID when engaging with numerous Government services and not simply when they are registering to vote. The amendment is similar to amendment 25 and connected amendments, so I will not repeat those arguments, but the change would see voters reminded about voter ID rules and reminded to apply for a free elector card when they engage with gov.uk services. For example, when people were applying for universal credit on the Department for Work and Pensions website, they would be asked, at the end of the application process, if they wished to apply for a free electoral ID. Of course, this is assuming that people will be able to apply online. There has not been clarity from the Minister so far this afternoon on that, so perhaps this is an opportunity for her to make it a little clearer.
Kemi Badenoch
The amendment would place a legal obligation on the Government to create a new digital application system, specifically on the gov.uk website, to enable eligible electors to apply for either the voter card or the anonymous elector’s document. We cannot agree to the amendment, although we recognise the positive intentions behind it. The issue of online applications was raised earlier. I want to reassure hon. Members that the Government share the aim of ensuring that the process for applying for these documents is highly accessible. We are working with numerous partners to ensure that is achieved. In particular, I would like to highlight the excellent work done by the various charities and organisations that advise us through the Government’s accessibility of elections working group.
However, the amendment would not help us achieve our goal. First, it is pre-emptively prescriptive. We need to be able to evaluate and consider the best vehicle for online applications. It may be better for online applications to be done via local authorities’ individual websites, or perhaps even a website specially designed for this purpose. We do not want to be restricted at this point, or to be required to fund a particular approach now, when there might be a much better option later. I have been clear that the Government’s intention is to continue working up the best model for implementing these measures. I acknowledge very much the arguments made for an online solution. I used to be a tech developer myself, so I completely see why this amendment was tabled, but for now we cannot support such a narrowly drawn approach.
Cat Smith
I am pleased to hear about the Minister’s tech background. I hope that in this new role she might find ways to make many aspects of the electoral system more digital friendly—something for which the Opposition have been calling for a long time. Although I do not feel that her response fully grasps the seriousness of the situation or the passion by which we want to make things more accessible, this was a probing amendment and I do not wish to push it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fleur Anderson
I beg to move amendment 43, in schedule 1, page 66, line 5, at end insert—
“13BF Prohibition of outsourcing of administration and production of electoral identity documents
The administration or production of an electoral identity document under section 13BD or an anonymous elector’s document under section 13BE may not be outsourced to a private company.”
This amendment would prohibit outsourcing. It would stop outsourcing being built into the way in which the Bill is administered. So many things are being left to secondary legislation, but not this. The amendment also comes from the evidence we heard from Northern Ireland especially. If we are to mitigate the worst effects of the introduction of voter ID, we have to learn from experience and follow best practice, and all the best practice and experience that we have available points to bringing the administration and production of voter ID in-house from the start. The Northern Ireland example demonstrates that beyond doubt. We heard from our witness last week that initial records showed that the outsourced cost per card in Northern Ireland was £14. It was then brought in-house at a cost of £2 a card, which was found to be a much better way of running the elections. That is an impressive reduction, brought about by the in-sourcing of a key public service.
Patrick Grady
This is an incredibly valuable amendment, and the hon. Lady can be sure of the SNP’s support if she presses it to a vote. We have seen in recent months the Government handing out private contracts in a quite relaxed way to people they are particularly friendly with. That is absolutely the last thing we would want to see happen in the production of voter ID cards.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Trust in outsourcing has recently been shaken among the electorate and constituents. Building it into the Bill would be a mistake.
The voter ID card will be an individual’s ticket to democratic participation, which is their voice; it is sacrosanct. It is therefore a process that the Government and the public sector must retain control of. Otherwise, we risk undermining trust in the entire system.
Tom Randall
Is it not the case that we outsource some quite important documents, such as our passports and banknotes, which are produced by De La Rue? If we can trust those things to the private sector, why could something like an electoral document also not be outsourced, if necessary?
Fleur Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Given recent examples, I just do not think we can trust this to external contracts. Why not build the best into our system? Why not learn from Northern Ireland, where that in-sourcing really worked? That is the closest example we have for this contract, so why not look to the experience there and learn from it?
Jerome Mayhew
If the financial information from Northern Ireland had been the other way around, would the argument not also have been reversed? In other words, are we not really worried about value for money and not whether this is in-sourced or outsourced, and should not the Bill remain silent on the matter?
Fleur Anderson
When secondary legislation is developed, which will probably cover this matter, perhaps we can see what the evidence base is. We can then look at different potential contracts and what the costs would be, and the hon. Member is correct that that should inform our decision.
Most recently, there was real concern about sharing our NHS data and GP surgery data with a private company. That had to be scrapped during the summer, because there was so much concern about sharing that data. I think we should learn from that experience as well. With voting, people are even more concerned about where their data goes, who will be producing the voter ID card and what will be done in that area, so we have to be even more concerned to ensure that the Government are in control of the matter. That is the way to keep our integrity.
I shall finish my remarks by asking the Minister some questions. Does her Department plan to outsource the administration and production of voter ID to private companies? Have there been some pre-contracting conversations already? If she does not know, will she commit to following best practice in Northern Ireland and ensuring that this essential service is kept in-house, or at least to making that the default position in future negotiations?
I hope that the Government will support the amendment, which is not controversial. It is in line with best electoral reform practice in our kingdoms, as shown in Northern Ireland, and most importantly it is the right thing to do for our democracy.
Kemi Badenoch
The amendment would ensure that private companies could not take any part in any aspect of producing or administrating voter cards and anonymous elector’s documents. We cannot agree to the amendment. It is an entirely unnecessary restriction, clearly raised for ideological reasons, with no consideration for the practicalities. I remind Opposition Members that the private sector already plays numerous roles in elections—it prints documents, ballot papers and poll cards; it manufactures equipment such as ballot boxes and polling booths; and it delivers poll cards and postal votes. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling made the point well; we on the Conservative Benches can spot socialism coming from a mile away, and this is nationalisation through the back door.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Whether this is about socialism or whatever else—we can debate that—we have just come out of a personal protective equipment scandal. So much of this Bill has been predicated on public trust and on building public trust. In light of the fact that the public have been so horribly stung in that PPE scandal, we have to rebuild trust. The idea of the landlord of a Minister’s local boozer saying, “I can make those cards for you,” runs a shiver down our spines. In the interests of building public trust, this surely has to be taken in-house, because if it is not we will be in grave danger of repeating the scandal we have seen with PPE.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that straw man argument, which shows that he did not listen to what I just said. Does he seriously think that all the ballot papers and poll cards that are being printed are being produced by mates—
Kemi Badenoch
No, I am not giving way any more. I would say that he does not think that. An ideological point is being made, and we will not have it.
The hon. Member for Putney made a point about GP surgeries having our data. GPs are private contractors. This conflation of what is private and what is not, and this lack of understanding of how services are delivered, is poor. The Carillion argument in particular is a specious one. Many organisations both private and public fail occasionally. We have debated these issues on the Floor of the House many times, and there is no point in my repeating them, but public sector organisations also fail. We do not then decide that we are going to rip up everything and that they will no longer provide any services; we try to fix what has gone wrong. I do not accept those arguments at all.
Government and local authorities will, as ever, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland said, seek to ensure best value for money for the taxpayer. That is the right thing to do, rather than the ideological ping-pong that we are seeing here. I say to the hon. Member for Putney: nice try, but we are not accepting the amendment. If any aspect of the production or administration of either of these documents could best be served in the private sector, then that must be an option that is available. We are not being prescriptive about how we are going to do this.
Aaron Bell
The implication of how the amendment has been drawn up is that we would need a Government factory to produce the plastic and another Government factory to produce the ink. It is absolutely ludicrous.
Kemi Badenoch
I completely agree. That is what the wording of the amendment would mean. It would ensure that private companies cannot take part in any aspect of producing or administering voter cards, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point.
It is also possible that the private sector will have expertise or capabilities, or could offer innovative solutions, that do not currently exist in the public sector but would be of great benefit to the elector. The private sector has long held an important role in supporting the effective delivery of elections. I have mentioned some examples showing that it is already a valuable and capable partner for electoral registration officers and returning officers, and there is no good reason why it should be prevented from contributing in this instance.
Fleur Anderson
I would say that the whole Bill is ideological, so it is ridiculous just to take one part of it. It is ideological from start to finish, and especially in these provisions on voter ID. We must get this right from the start. We cannot go to an outsourced private company, get it botched, cause people not to trust it, and then insource it. Why not learn from Northern Ireland and get it right from the start? I am disappointed by the Minister’s lack of reflection on the Northern Irish experience. I still hope that this will be insourced from start to finish when it comes into play, and that the £120 million estimated cost will not go to line the pockets of individuals but stay within the system, where it should be. For all those reasons, we will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Cat Smith
I beg to move amendment 44, in schedule 1, page 66, line 5, at end insert—
“13BF Public consultation on regulations under sections 13BD and 13BE
The Secretary of State may not lay before Parliament a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 13BD or section 13BE unless they have first undertaken public consultation on those regulations for a period no shorter than 28 days.”
This amendment would require the Government to consult for at least 28 days on regulations made about electoral identity documents and anonymous elector documents before they are laid before Parliament for debate and approval.
The amendment would require the Government to publish the details of the free elector IDs at least 28 days before they are laid in Parliament for debate, scrutiny and approval. It would be outrageous and unacceptable were they to fail to give us information about how the ID cards are administered before the legislation is laid. It is yet another example of how the Government continue to try to dodge scrutiny. It reminds me very much of the voter ID pilots. I appreciate that today’s Minister was not the Minister at the time, but the legislation for the pilots was rushed through Parliament in secondary legislation. All 650 MPs were denied the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s plans. The Government appear to have some kind of allergy to scrutiny and accountability. I cannot understand why they would have any issue with the amendment, which would increase the confidence of the public and the whole House that the regulations would be workable, fair and proportionate.
Since the policy was first announced in December 2016, the Government have received multiple warnings from charities, civil society figures and campaign groups on the use of voter ID cards if they are rolled out nationally, and the threat that they could be a drawbridge for millions of voters. I remind the Committee that Neil Coughlan has a case in the Supreme Court challenging the pilots, which of course were rushed through by secondary legislation. I certainly would not want that to be the situation for the consultation on the regulations.
Aaron Bell
The shadow Minister makes a reasonable request about secondary legislation. I am sure that she is aware of the evidence that the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), gave to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. She said:
“I am keen to be able to bring forward as much of that secondary legislation as early as possible so that parliamentarians can scrutinise it. That is only fair. In particular, in terms of the passage of the Bill, I am hoping to be able to do that ahead of the Lords stages. That is a reasonable ask of those who are doing the work behind the scenes, balanced with making sure that Parliament can see the detail that is contained.”
I hope that those assurances have been heard by the Opposition.
Cat Smith
I am aware of those comments. Perhaps my amendment gives the Minister the opportunity to confirm that it is her intention to keep to the commitment made by the previous Minister.
The free ID cards will be the linchpin upon which all the Government’s arguments rest. Every time the Minister, or her predecessor, was asked about voter ID plans, I have had it explained to me that everyone will be able to access the free ID cards. In July 2020, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 recommended that the Government needed to
“clarify how local elector cards will be funded and how it will ensure that local elector cards are easily accessible for everyone who needs one.”
In the Committee’s view,
“local elector cards will be crucial to ensuring that voter ID does not deter or prevent any eligible elector from voting.”
We are yet to hear any clarification from the previous Minister or the Minister on these matters—I appreciate that the Minister is only a few days into this role. The Bill does not contain any information about how the process will work.
I have a number of questions for the Minister, and I hope she will be able to respond. She said that the free ID cards issued by a local authority would be valid in other local authorities. For instance, if someone registers in Westminster but then moves to Lambeth, their ID card would still be valid for elections there. How would that work for anonymous electors who, instead of having a name on a polling card, have a polling number? Would they be the exception? For instance, victims of domestic violence who appear anonymously on the electoral roll will not have their names on their ID cards. How will those cases work across boroughs or council areas in different parts of the country?
Will the Minister explain where voters will be able to apply for their free ID cards? Does it have to be done in person? Will electors be able to apply for a free ID card on the day of poll? If an elector loses their ID card before the election, will they be able to collect another one on the day or would it be the day before polling day, if they are already in the system as having a free voter ID card? I have asked this previously, but will ask it again, and would be very happy to receive a more detailed answer in writing: will voters be able to apply for the cards online? That is a crucial issue and I will keep pushing it.
How long will one voter ID card take to process? How much will one ID card cost the taxpayer? Will it be the same ballpark figure as we have seen in Northern Ireland? Has the Minister considered how the Government will ensure that additional trained staff are available to process applications? What sort of equipment will be needed to verify applications and issue cards? Will local authorities need to purchase new printers? Will the Minister ensure that voters who want to apply for a free ID card on the day of poll can still vote? How many additional staff on average will be needed in each local authority to process this extraordinary change?
There are a lot of detailed questions there. I would appreciate it if the Minister could respond to what she can in the debate, but I would also be happy to receive something in writing during conference recess.
I could go on. There are an awful lot of questions about this policy—I have just scratched the surface. We have no detail on this policy, which is why the amendment is so important. It would provide time for the Opposition and the public to see the details and scrutinise them, and hopefully help the Government by making sure that the legislation is workable and fair.
Patrick Grady
It is either that or the Committee gets a separate speech. We fully agree with the amendment and the hon. Lady’s point. Does this not go to the heart of what the Bill is allegedly trying to achieve, which is greater participation, greater trust in the process and greater political engagement, in which case why not have a full public consultation period of no shorter than 28 days, so that everyone with a stake in the matter is able to contribute? That would boost confidence in the system.
Cat Smith
The hon. Member is absolutely right. Light is a very good source of scrutiny. A public consultation, as the amendment suggests, would bring in the expertise of more than just Members of this House. Obviously, we all engage with the process, but our electoral administrators might well have points to add. It would give them the opportunity to contribute, as it would political parties who are not represented in this House. Smaller parties would be able to have their say. It would give the Government far more credibility on what is, at the moment, quite a flaky policy.
Kemi Badenoch
Amendment 44 would ensure that any regulations made under proposed new sections 13BD or 13BE to the Representation of the People Act 1983 would first require a public consultation period of at least 28 days. The powers in those sections are for setting out the form of the voter card and the anonymous elector’s document, and the processes for both applying for them and issuing them.
We cannot agree to the amendment; it is an unnecessary administrative burden. Any regulations made under the new sections will be subject to consultation with the Electoral Commission, followed by significant parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative statutory instrument procedure. Parliament would naturally want to ensure that any future changes are appropriate and based on contemporary evidence. Given the feisty debate that we have had—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Glasgow North is laughing, but the fact is that we are having a lot of scrutiny on this Bill. We cannot pretend that we are not, and everyone can see that MPs are pleased to scrutinise this issue more than many others.
Patrick Grady
I was particularly amused by the notion that affirmative instruments are subject to detailed scrutiny. Anyone with experience of the SI process in this House could see that comment in the wider context in which it should be judged, and that provoked my laughter. The reality is that the Government rely increasingly on these kinds of statutory instruments and secondary legislation regulations, partly because they do not seem to have done their homework in preparing the primary legislation and precisely because they want to avoid the kind of scrutiny that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood talked about—the opportunity for smaller parties who are not represented on Delegated Legislation Committees to have their say and the opportunity to amend regulations introduced in statutory instruments. This speaks to the power grab at the heart of the Bill, no matter what the purported purposes of it are.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If he feels there are issues with the SI process, he should take it up with the Procedure Committee, but I am sure I have sat in a room just like this one when he has been keen to get out to have his lunch. I think that for those of us—
Patrick Grady
On a point of order, Sir Edward. I am happy to go back and look at the Hansard record, but I have no recollection of serving on a Delegated Legislation Committee with the Minister, whether she was a member of it or a Minister. The record will show that at any time when I have represented the SNP on a Delegated Legislation Committee, I have made every effort to speak and to scrutinise the Government. Most of those Committees have been early in the morning, anyway, so we would not have been leaving for lunch.
Kemi Badenoch
I will leave the hon. Gentleman’s comments without reply, as we need to get back to the point.
I have talked about the Electoral Commission and the affirmative SI procedure, but there is a further issue with the amendment, of which I think we are all aware. It would require a significant mandatory time delay in making any regulations in future, no matter how small or technical. That could prevent a Government from making essential changes in time for an election if they needed to adapt the processes for issuing voter cards. The Government have worked and will continue to work closely with a wide range of organisations in the development and implementation stages of these measures. Adding a formulaic approach would be prohibitive to the system developing intuitively and responding quickly to evidence that comes out of implementation.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood asked whether I agreed with the remarks made by my predecessor in this Committee. Of course; I am keen to bring secondary legislation to the House as quickly as possible. She asked a lot of detailed questions, many of which I have answered before, and I am conscious that there is much still to work out as we go through further stages of the Bill. The questions that I can answer I will write to her about, but for many of them I am afraid I will refer to my responses to similar questions that have been asked previously. This will have to wait until secondary legislation, so we will not support the amendment.
Cat Smith
I am very disappointed that the Minister has not been able to cover at least some of my questions. I am particularly concerned about victims of domestic violence, who are anonymous on the electoral roll if they have a letter from their local police. I urge the Minister to look seriously at that issue because some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in our communities are likely to disproportionately face barriers because of their ID cards. Presumably it will be difficult to make them valid. The Minister has failed to reassure me that there will be true public scrutiny of the regulations, so I wish to press the matter to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Cat Smith
I beg to move amendment 45, in schedule 1, page 73, line 9, at end insert
“, or another eligible voter who has produced a specified document to the presiding officer or clerk on that day attests to the identity of the voter.”
This amendment would allow another voter who has provided ID at a polling station to attest to the identity of a voter who does not have a specified ID with them.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 46, in schedule 1, page 73, line 9, at end insert
“, or signs an affidavit in a manner and form as may be prescribed by regulations in the presence of the presiding officer or a clerk.”
This amendment would allow a voter to sign an affidavit confirming their identity in order to vote.
Cat Smith
The amendments would allow voters who do not have ID to still vote, by other means—either through attestation of their identity from another voter or by signing an affidavit to confirm their identify. They would allow voters who are on the electoral roll to still participate when they do not have ID to show. This takes place in other countries that require ID. Indeed, the amendments were very much inspired by conversations with campaigners in the United States, where, in some states, this has gone some way towards ensuring that voters are not excluded when voter ID requirements are in place.
Throughout Second Reading and so far in Committee, we have discussed the vanishingly rare amount of voter personation fraud that occurs in the UK. I need not remind the House that somebody is more likely to be struck by lightning three times than to become a victim of voter personation fraud.
Aaron Bell
The shadow Minister will know that just because there are very few convictions does not mean that there is not a bigger funnel of fraud at the top. The purpose of the amendments is to frustrate the entire purpose of voter ID. The assumption that everybody in the electoral process is a good actor is not one that we can make and not one that Government Members do make. The shadow Minister is talking about allowing somebody to attest to somebody else’s identity; there will be no follow-up check to see whether the right people have been marked off. All the issues that we heard about in the evidence from Peter Golds and others last week would still be permissible under this attestation process. It would still leave open the window for fraud that Government Members are seeking to close.
Cat Smith
I feel like we have rehearsed these arguments quite a few times already, but I will just say this: personation is incredibly rare. We heard that consistently from across the witnesses. Requiring an attestation is another barrier, in the same way as asking for ID is, but it is one that is more easily met by electors who, for whatever reason, do not have ID.
We know that there are some bad actors. If a bad actor is seeking to cast a vote that is not theirs, but they know that they have to have an attestation, that is a further barrier, because it is another chance of being caught out. This is another safety measure that could be brought in that is not as prescriptive and discriminatory, I would argue, as requirements for ID. If I am asked for a form of ID, I may or may not have it, but anyone can make an attestation if they turn up to vote. It would give the polling clerks opportunities to do further checks. It is just a way of ensuring, should voter ID come into force, that we do not exclude people who, for whatever reason, do not have ID or, as in the example I gave earlier, lose their ID on the day, and that they do not lose their right to vote.
I believe that this is a proportional and tried and tested measure that we could bring in to ensure that people are not disenfranchised and do not lose their vote.
Chris Clarkson
I appreciate that, with this amendment, the shadow Minister is attempting to ensure that as many people as possible can access the process, but does she really think that it would act as a deterrent to somebody who had got it in their mind to go through the process of looking at who does and does not vote? I could present myself at the polling station in Lancaster and say, “I’m Cat Smith; I’m here to vote.” Does she think I am then going to sign myself “Chris Clarkson” there? I will simply write that I am Cat Smith and go and cast the hon. Lady’s vote, and then she may turn up later and find out that I have stolen her identity. I have got away with it—I have cleared off.
Cat Smith
The hon. Member makes such a ridiculous point that I do not know where to begin. He highlights just how difficult personation at a polling station is. Were he to turn up at my polling station in Lancaster and claim to be me, I suspect that for several reasons he would probably not get away with it. I do not share his youthful good looks, clearly.
Patrick Grady
The other point, of course, is that if someone was going to all that hassle to cast a vote in the name of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, why would they not just print out a fake passport or one of the other forms of ID in the Bill? If that would be an offence under the Bill, so would making a false declaration—even more so, because the voter would potentially be asking their colleague to sign the attestation that the voter is who they say they are, or the voter would sign an affidavit. That would be an offence; they would still be personating.
Given that the Committee has agreed to the principle of voter identification, should we not look at finding ways to make that as inclusive as possible? I do not understand the hostility from the Government Benches when the Committee has accepted the principle of the need for increased safeguards and identification of voters. Let us find ways to make it as open and inclusive as possible. Once again, the hon. Lady can be confident of the support of the Scottish National party.
Cat Smith
I thank the hon. Member. We are finding an awful lot of common ground on the legislation. In the 2018 and 2019 pilots, we found that when voters were asked for a restrictive form of ID, hundreds of people who did not have it and did not understand that it was needed were turned away. This is a safeguard to ensure that those legitimate voters who were turned away would get a chance to cast a ballot.
Cat Smith
One of the witnesses in our evidence sessions—I cannot remember who it was; perhaps someone can intervene and share it with us—was very clear that no matter what legislation we bring in and how hard we try, bad actors will find a way around it to commit fraud. Even requiring ID at polling stations is not watertight. The hon. Member for Glasgow North made the point very clearly that if someone prints out a fake driving licence or passport, they can suddenly claim to be someone else because they have shown ID, even though it is a forgery. The legislation is not watertight against fraud, so it is about being proportionate.
I believe that the amendment is a proportionate safeguard to ensure that constituents who, for whatever reason on the day, are unable to provide ID are not denied the opportunity to cast a vote. It is used in many US states that have what I would call non-strict ID. It provides some level of protection, but not one that results in people being denied their vote.
Kemi Badenoch
Amendment 45 would allow a voter who has provided a specified form of identification at a polling station to attest to the identity of another voter who does not have a specified identification with them, and therefore enable a ballot paper to be issued to them. Amendment 46 would allow a voter who signs an affidavit confirming their identity to be issued with a ballot paper, even if they have not produced a specified form of identification. We cannot agree to the amendments because they would undermine the entire purpose of the voter identification measure in the Bill: that voters should show photographic identification in order to vote at an election. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton made an excellent intervention on that, which I will come to in a moment.
I remind Members that the principle underpinning the policy is to give voters confidence that their vote is theirs and theirs alone. Personation is by definition a crime of deception. It is very difficult to identify and prove. Photographic identification, more than attestation, virtually removes any risk of it occurring. It is a tried and tested model in the UK. As I said, the 2018 and 2019 pilots found that public confidence in the integrity of elections was higher. Attestation is just nowhere near the level that we need. People being able to create other documents easily is a weak argument. Fake passports and IDs are very difficult, complex things to create. Someone cannot just print a fake passport at their local library. The weakness of the examples that are being given shows that attestation is nowhere close to photographic identification.
We also consider that the decision to issue a ballot paper in a polling station to a voter should rest squarely with the presiding officer or a clerk. We do not consider that it would be appropriate for a voter to have a role in the issue of ballot papers to other voters, in particular as the ballot paper would be issued to a voter who has not shown a required form of identification. We should recognise that there would also be a risk that these provisions could be exploited by the unscrupulous to allow a ballot paper to be issued to a person who is ineligible to vote at an election. Any eligible voter who does not have one of the required forms of photographic identification can apply for a voter card. We will continue to work with multiple stakeholders—local authorities, the Electoral Commission, charities and civil society organisations—to make sure that reforms are delivered in a way that is inclusive for all voters.
I urge Opposition Members not to press the amendment.
Cat Smith
The Minister was obviously not present for our evidence sessions, but it strikes me that, as our witnesses told us that postal voting is where the largest amount of fraud takes place, and as that is a form of voting where photo ID is not required, she is leaving a gaping hole in the risks that she outlined. I am not convinced by her arguments and I would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Cat Smith
I beg to move amendment 47, in schedule 1, page 73, line 9, at end insert—
‘(1AA) The presiding officer or clerk must—
(a) deliver a provisional ballot paper to a voter who is unable to produce a specified document,
(b) take reasonable steps as may be prescribed by regulations to establish if the voter, had they been able to produce a specified document, would have been entitled to a ballot paper, and
(c) if the voter would have been so entitled, covert the provisional ballot paper to a ballot paper in a manner as may be prescribed by regulations.”
This amendment would allow a voter who does not have a specified ID with them to cast a provisional ballot pending checks on their identity.
The amendment would allow a voter who does not have the specified ID with them to cast a provisional ballot pending checks on their identity. It is another example of an approach used successfully in the United States to ensure that as many people as possible who are legitimate electors are able to cast their vote in an election. In some states, such as Colorado, Florida, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont, voters who do not show required identification may vote on a provisional ballot, and after the close of election day, election officials will determine via a signature check or other verification whether the voter was eligible and registered, and whether the provisional ballot should be counted or be excluded. No action on the part of the voter is required.
Tom Randall
This is the same intervention that I was going to make earlier. The hon. Lady gives some good examples from the United States. I just wondered, as we are a European country, whether there are any examples from European countries that use voter ID. Do they have any of these measures that the Opposition are proposing?
Cat Smith
The reason why I draw examples from the United States is that it does not have a national ID card, in the same way that we do not, whereas the European examples tend to have a national ID card. In that sense, we are more similar to the United States than to the European countries that the hon. Gentleman tempts me to talk about.
In New Hampshire, election officials will send a letter to anyone who has signed a challenged voter affidavit because they did not show an ID. These voters must return the mailing confirming that they are indeed in residence as indicated on the affidavit.
That method has allowed many successful elections to take place without fraud becoming an issue. There have been so many inventive ways to ensure that people do not lose their right to vote under that legislation. I urge the Government to share that imagination and perhaps to listen to some of those examples of good practice from the United States and incorporate them into the UK legislation. I hope the Minister will consider looking at the proposals and at the ways in which some US states do that to support our attempts not only to stamp out fraud, but to ensure that no elector is disenfranchised unduly.
Kemi Badenoch
The amendment would provide that a person who is unable to produce one of the required forms of photographic identification is able to cast a provisional ballot pending checks on their identity. We cannot agree to the amendment. It would mean that the counting of votes and announcement of the final result at an election might have to be delayed while the eligibility of such persons to vote at the election is checked and resolved by elections staff.
Brendan O'Hara
On the length of time, so much of what we heard on Second Reading and today was about the integrity of the ballot and about ensuring that every vote counts and that no vote is there wrongly, but suddenly we seem to have a pivoting on this point, with convenience somehow trumping democracy. The Minister accepted that queues will be longer, because people will have to produce a voter ID card, so are we really saying that the inconvenience of having to check the veracity of somebody’s vote—that it is absolutely correct—is more important than them actually having that vote?
Kemi Badenoch
No, I do not think so. I do not think that the point the hon. Gentleman is making applies to this amendment. Of course, we want every single vote to be counted, but as the amendment is drafted, how long would we have to wait, and what would the procedure be under it?
Brendan O'Hara
The answer would be that we wait as long as we need to get the right result.
Kemi Badenoch
Exactly—that is the point I was coming to. As the amendment is drafted, it could be a way in a marginal election of unduly delaying the announcement of a result. We want to ensure that people do not have their votes taken away and used by others who should not be using them. The examples we saw in Tower Hamlets and so on are part of the reason for the Bill.
Kemi Badenoch
No, I need to make progress—I am looking at the time.
The examples that we gave show why the Bill is needed, and that is not what the amendment would do. It would create an unnecessary administrative process. The focus of the Bill is on ensuring that everyone who is eligible and wants to cast their ballot in person can do so. We are talking about a situation in which someone does not have any photographic identification or a voter ID card, but puts in a provisional ballot only to disappear for who knows how long. Someone refused a ballot paper because they do not produce a required form of photographic identification may try again. If they return with identification, they will get a ballot, and they may make any number of attempts to do so.
Patrick Grady
That does not answer the point that I made on Second Reading and earlier today about what happens if a voter turns up too late in the process, say about quarter to 10 at night, at the last minute, but realises that they have left their photographic identification at home. By the time they get back, they might not be able to get inside to cast their ballot. This nonsense of, “How long would it take?”, could perhaps be addressed in regulations, as that seems to be the Minister’s solution to most of our other problems and questions. Or, if she does not like the competency or the wording of the amendment, is she suggesting that she would be open to a more clearly prescriptive amendment to address some of the points on Report? Perhaps that will be tabled and the Government will consider it at that stage.
Kemi Badenoch
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has improved his argument by saying that we should not have the legislation because someone might turn up with five minutes left and something could wrong. We do not say that border control should not look at passports because someone might have left theirs at home, so might miss their flight.
The hon. Gentleman’s argument is, I am afraid, weak. We are improving and strengthening the process. There will of course be scenarios that are unpreventable. We have all seen them before, when someone is unable to vote. One of those scenarios, I repeat, is when someone tries to vote and their vote has been taken by someone else. The Bill will fix that, and the amendment would not help.
Points were made about what happens when people change their names. An elector who has changed their name since their photographic identification was issued will be able to bring additional documentation to polling stations to satisfy the presiding officer that they are on the register. The amendment would lead to the creation of an entirely new concept of a provisional vote that would be new to UK elections. It would therefore not be a straightforward process. That could impact on the result being announced in good time, as I have already said, potentially undermining public confidence in the outcome of the poll—something that we cannot have. We are therefore not persuaded of the merits of the arguments or the proposed changes, and we would be concerned about the potential harm they could do to the successful delivery of elections. I urge the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood to withdraw the amendment.
Cat Smith
I am not entirely reassured by the Minister’s remarks. I know that our Liberal Democrat colleague, the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), has a different surname on the electoral roll. The issue of names on documents is a huge problem, particularly for women. It would be good to see an impact assessment, given the Minister’s dual role. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I ask the Government to look seriously at ways in which we can be more innovative about being inclusive in our actions. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Cat Smith
I beg to move amendment 48, in schedule 1, page 73, line 14 at end insert—
“(1BA) The presiding officer must ensure that a woman presiding officer or clerk is available to confirm privately the identity of a woman voter if that voter so requests.”
This amendment would give someone choosing to cover their face for religious or cultural reasons the option of removing their face covering in the presence of a woman presiding officer or clerk when confirming their identity.
This amendment would give someone choosing to cover their face for religious or cultural reasons the option of removing their face covering in the presence of a woman polling clerk or presiding officer when confirming their identity. The previous Minister advised colleagues that polling staff will be given appropriate training in the checking of voter ID for individuals who choose to wear face coverings or headscarves. Although the Government have apparently guaranteed the use of privacy screens at polling stations to facilitate private ID checks, many voters will feel uncomfortable about the prospect of having to show their face or hair to a polling clerk of the opposite gender.
In an evidence session we heard from Rob Connelly from Birmingham about how there will be an issue in recruiting polling clerks. He said:
“We will have to start reviewing all our polling stations again to be able to have privacy screens in place”.––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 61, Q96.]
I want to acknowledge the fact that there is a lot of pressure on local authorities. It is essential that no one is disfranchised. We also took evidence from Maurice Mcleod, who said:
“It is all very well saying that photo ID should be used, but if you are not supposed to reveal your face to a man who is not in your immediate family, that is really hard. Even if councils say, ‘We’ll make sure there are women, or people who know what should happen, at the polling station,’ there is still that worry in your head, if you are that woman who is not that confident about whatever, and you need to go out and vote. There is still that concern—‘Will I be treated properly? Do they know…my faith needs?’”
––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2021; c. 97, Q152.]
Will the Minister confirm that her plans include provisions to ensure that there are staff of both genders all day at each of the 35,000 polling stations across the country to ensure that voters will not be placed in an inappropriate position? How much does she expect that to cost? Does she share my concern that many women will simply choose not to vote if they perceive that they are faced with the risk of having to remove their headscarf or face covering to a stranger, particularly a male stranger?
Kemi Badenoch
Amendment 48 would require the presiding officer to ensure that a woman presiding officer or clerk is available to confirm privately the identity of a woman voter if that voter so requests. We cannot agree to the amendment because it would not be appropriate for that level of detail about the staffing of polling stations to be set out in primary legislation. It is for returning officers and electoral administrators to manage the resources that they have for the poll, and there is the concern that introducing such a requirement would severely limit flexibility in the deployment of elections staff, which would make it challenging for returning officers to successfully deliver elections.
Before imposing such requirements and additional burdens on polling staff, it is important to conduct research and engagement with the public to find out if this is something they would find beneficial, or something that would need to be done in all areas. A similar policy of voter identification has been operating in Northern Ireland since 2003, and no such requirement exists there. Certainly, we will look to have this approach as best practice, which may be the more sensible approach, and one that provides more flexibility. I reassure the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood that initial discussions with electoral administrators have identified a significantly higher presence of female than male staff working in polling stations which, anecdotally, has been my own experience.
We consider it impractical to introduce the strict requirement proposed by the amendment, which could potentially prevent polling stations from being able to operate. I have said previously that we are going to be as inclusive as we reasonably can with this legislation. I am happy to reassure the hon. Lady that polling station staff will be given appropriate training, as she mentioned, and there will be a requirement for privacy screens to be placed in polling stations, allowing for those who wish to have their ID viewed in private. On that basis, the Government cannot support this amendment.
Cat Smith
Without this amendment, I fear we risk a postcode lottery, where many women will be very anxious about the prospect of voting without the guarantee of a female poll clerk to verify their identity. For that reason, we would like to have a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 50, in Schedule 1, page 75, line 9, at end insert—
“(o) an 18+ Student Oyster photocard;”.
Amendment 51, in Schedule 1, page 75, line 9, at end insert—
“(o) a National Rail Railcard;”.
Amendment 52, in Schedule 1, page 75, line 9, at end insert—
“(o) a Young Scot National Entitlement Card;”.
Amendment 53, in Schedule 1, page 75, line 9, at end insert—
“(o) a firearms certificate granted under the Firearms Act 1968;
(b) a digital ID (such as the NHS app, EU settled status app or Railcard app).”.
Cat Smith
Despite losing many votes this afternoon, I do hope that the Government might be open to the idea of looking at various different IDs that we can add to the list of valid IDs in the Bill.
There are many aspects of the Bill that I find quite shocking and, arguably, undemocratic. The fact that people are unable to use student IDs or 18-plus Oyster cards to vote is an attack on young people’s ability to take part in our democracy. It is something that falls to all of us, as Members of this House, to ensure that the next generation engage with democracy. There is an oversight, in that, the legislation does allow for travel passes for older voters to be used, but not for younger voters who have similar passes.
The inclusion of student IDs that contain photographs and names would be an improvement to this Bill. I hope the Government considers this, as it is incredibly important that we engage young people in our democracy. We have seen in other parts of the United Kingdom, where 16 and 17-year-olds have a vote, that if they use their vote when they are 16 or 17 they are more likely to develop a habit of voting and taking part in democracy.
This goes back to my first argument: that our democracy is stronger, and it is harder for bad actors to influence it, when we have higher participation. This amendment seeks to increase that participation, to ensure that more forms of ID are included on the list in the Bill. It cannot be right that some IDs seem to be valid and some IDs seem not to be valid.
Patrick Grady
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the enthusiasm with which 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland have participated in ballots and plebiscites since they have had the opportunity to do so, and how frustrating many of them have found it when a UK snap election has come along—the pattern in recent years—that they cannot participate in. I particularly welcome amendment 52 including the Young Scot National Entitlement Card as a form of ID, because it is already recognised in law by the Scottish Government and Police Scotland as an acceptable form of proof of age. I will be very interested to hear it if the Government decide that they oppose the suite of amendments that we are currently debating, because why, having accepted the principle of photographic identification, would they then want to narrow the scope and narrow the chances of people being able to demonstrate who they are? It just seems a bit bizarre.
Cat Smith
I completely agree with the hon. Member. His intervention gives me the opportunity to put it on the record that the Welsh Labour Government have also recently extended the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds and seek to make participation in democracy something that is easy to do yet still secure. On that note, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses as to why young people are seeing more barriers put up to their voting than already exist.
Kemi Badenoch
The amendment would ensure that further forms of photographic identification would be allowed in order to vote at a polling station. We cannot agree to the amendment, because the forms of identification currently in the Bill were chosen following a detailed assessment of a wide variety of photo identification.
Kemi Badenoch
I can actually answer the question, because I asked it myself; I thought it was an interesting point. The reason is that the requirements when applying for those types of card are different. Getting a 60+ Oyster card is a significantly more stringent process. People need a passport, driving licence or combination of different proofs of age and address to apply for the 60+ Oyster card. People do not have to have that for the 18+ Oyster card, for example. We have gone through and looked at what the basis for stringent checks would be. The point I am making is that we considered the level of security checks required to get each type of identification and the likelihood that someone holding further forms of identification would already hold one of the permitted types of identification. That is why this is the case.
Brendan O’Hara
My question is on the specifics. We have been talking about a card that is accepted by the Scottish Government and, indeed, by Police Scotland. Why specifically is the Scottish young person’s national entitlement card not accepted for this purpose?
Kemi Badenoch
I am sorry, but I do not know the details of the Scottish entitlement card. Perhaps if I can see the reasons and the application process for that, I might be able to give an example. I have given the basis for how the decisions were made. I cannot comment on various forms of identification used in various places, I am afraid.
The list of identity documents that will be permitted for the purpose of voting at polling stations that is included in the Bill is already broad. That said, it is recognised that available forms of identification will change over time, and that is why the Bill includes provisions to allow the list of acceptable identification to be updated through secondary legislation. For example, there are plans for online provisional driving licences, which will be considered for inclusion if appropriate. We completely understand the need to make sure that as many people as possible are able to get the ID that they need, and we feel that this provision and the free voter card are enough to make sure that voters will have the identification required, so we will not support the amendment.
Cat Smith
As the legislation stands, it is disappointing that the Minister has not been able to present convincing evidence on several forms of identity in this group of amendments. I hope that she takes this opportunity to look particularly at the Young Scot card, which is accepted by the Scottish Government, in order to at least present to the Committee the patterns of thinking as to why that was not as secure as, say, the 60+ Oyster card in London, because I think that would be of benefit to the Committee. I hope that the Government will be looking to make the list, while being secure, as inclusive as possible. And I would wish to have some votes, Sir Edward.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Twelfth sitting)
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
New clause 9—Appointment of the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom—
“(1) The appointment of the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom shall be subject to a confirmatory resolution of the relevant Select Committee of the House of Commons.
(2) The Secretary of State shall when appointing the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom have regard to the views of an Independent Advisory Body.”.
This new clause would require the appointment of the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom to be confirmed by the Education Select Committee, and for the Secretary of State to consult the Independent Advisory Body when appointing the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom.
New clause 11—Review of the appointment process for the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the appointment process for the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom within six months following the calling of a new Parliament.
(2) Any review conducted under subsection (1) must assess the suitability of the appointment process for selecting politically impartial candidates.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report of the review before Parliament.”.
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the appointment process for the Director for Freedom of Speech within six months following the calling of a new Parliament, and lay the report of this review before Parliament. The review must include an assessment of the suitability of the appointment process for selecting politically impartial candidates.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I will just finish off my remarks on amendment 85 and new clauses 9 and 11. I remind the Committee that we believe there is a need for some other body to be involved in the process. We suggested that the Education Committee could be well disposed to carry out that role.
Our critical point is that maintenance of and alignment to the Nolan principles are important in the appointment of the director for freedom of speech. The approach of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education was raised, with its emphasis on skills and experience. I sense there is a bit of clear blue water between that approach and what has been proposed for the position at the OfS, which might align more with principles and values.
The key thing throughout has been the importance of credibility in this appointment. Many in the sector have questioned the trust, and that is something my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington addressed. Credibility is important; there is real concern across the sector—not just on the Opposition Benches—about this legislation, and particularly about the intent behind the appointment of the director of free speech.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matt Western
We have discussed this clause at some length. It causes us great concern and concern across the entire sector—to the universities, the University and College Union and the National Union of Students, as well as to existing bodies, such as the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, and to the Charity Commission. All our amendments to the clause have sought to ensure that the director is best equipped to deal with the difficult task that awaits them.
The chief executive of the Office for Students, Nicola Dandridge, likened the director of free speech and academic freedom to the director for fair access and participation. I am not convinced they are the same. This position is so important to the future direction of our campuses, although the director for fair access and participation is of course important, and we have had a person in post since the inception of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 and the establishment of the OfS, so that person predates the Prime Minister, his Government and the direction in which he is clearly taking us. However, while I appreciate the similarities and very much hope that the director of free speech has an equally positive effect and an impartial position, the clause as it stands creates a framework that favours the centralisation of power in one person, potentially with a lack of participation from the sector, which will remain silent on the appointment of the director. We tabled those constructive amendments to get the engagement and buy-in from the sector, which as colleagues have so eloquently said is absolutely needed now. We have heard that the Association of Colleges, for example, has not been consulted at all. There are many flaws in the approach that the Government have followed.
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
We have already discussed the clause extensively, so I will keep my remarks very tight.
The new complaints scheme provided for by clause 7 will be overseen by the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom within the Office for Students, and that director will oversee the free speech functions of the OfS. That means that there will be an individual within the OfS who has an undivided focus on those fundamental values in our higher education system, and they will play a public role in championing the value of free speech and academic freedom across the higher education sector.
That new high-profile role will demonstrate the importance of free speech and academic freedom in higher education and will empower individuals and providers to ensure that universities and colleges in England are places where freedom of speech can thrive for all staff, students and visiting speakers, contributing to a culture of open and robust intellectual debate.
Matt Western
Will the Minister confirm that the role will be a full-time appointment, and what will the tenure of the contract be?
Michelle Donelan
As we heard in evidence, the role will be akin to the director for fair access and participation. The job description and all the terms will be published in due course—it would be premature to do that before the Bill becomes an Act.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michelle Donelan
Clause 9 gives effect to the schedule to the Bill that makes minor and consequential amendments to other legislation. These consequential amendments are necessary to give effect to the main provisions of the Bill and to make all the legislation work together seamlessly and consistently.
Part 1 of the schedule provides for a number of amendments to be made to part 1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. For example, amendments to section 75 of the 2017 Act allow for the regulatory framework of the Office for Students, which gives guidance on how it will regulate, to include provision on student unions. That is a consequence of the new duties for student unions that are imposed under clauses 2 and 6 of the Bill.
Part 2 of the schedule makes amendments to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Paragraph 13 makes consequential amendments. Paragraphs 14 and 15 make minor changes that are not consequential, but are technical corrections. The effect of the amendments is to match those providers that are monitored for compliance with the Prevent duty under section 32 of the 2015 Act to those listed in schedule 6 of that Act that are subject to the duty. That makes no difference in practice; it is simply to fix inconsistencies in wording.
Part 3 of the schedule amends section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which sets out the current freedom of speech duties on universities and colleges. It removes registered higher education providers from scope, since they will now be covered by this Bill. Part 3 also amends the Higher Education Act 2004 to ensure that the scheme operated by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which considers student complaints against providers, takes account of the new freedom of speech complaints scheme to be operated by the Office for Students.
The clause and schedule therefore contain amendments to other legislation that are necessary for the operation of the Bill.
Matt Western
I do not have any points to make on this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
Minor and consequential amendments
Amendments made: 17, in schedule, page 13, line 25, leave out from “subsection (1),” to end of line and insert—
“for ‘a provider’ substitute ‘a registered higher education provider, or a students’ union,’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18.
Amendment 18, in schedule, page 13, line 27, leave out “provider,” and insert—
“registered higher education provider or of a constituent institution of such a provider,”.
This enables costs recovery from constituent institutions in connection with the complaints scheme.
Amendment 19, in schedule, page 14, line 6, after “provider” insert “, constituent institution”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18.
Amendment 20, in schedule, page 14, line 43, at end insert—
“(aa) after the definition of ‘a fee limit condition’ insert—
‘“constituent institution”, in relation to a registered higher education provider, has the same meaning as in Part A1 (see section A3A(4));’;”.
This defines “constituent institution” for the purposes of Part 1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.
Amendment 21, in schedule, page 15, line 46, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) and insert—
“(2) In paragraph 1, for the words from ‘in relation’ to the end substitute ‘where under section 73 the OfS imposes a requirement to pay costs on—
(a) the governing body of a registered higher education provider,
(b) the governing body of a constituent institution of a registered higher education provider, or
(c) a students’ union.’
(3) In paragraph 2—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1)— in sub-paragraphs (3) and (5), after ‘governing body’ insert ‘or students’ union’.
(i) after ‘governing body’ insert ‘or students’ union’;
(ii) for ‘73(1)’ substitute ‘73’;
(4) In paragraph 3(1) for ‘of a provider’ substitute ‘or students’ union’.”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18.
Amendment 22, in schedule, page 16, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) In subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (b), omit the final ‘or’;
(b) after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(ba) a constituent college, school or hall or other institution in England or Wales of an institution within paragraph (b), or’.”.
This amendment aligns section 31(1)(b) of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 with the concepts used in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, in order to facilitate the Minister’s other amendments to Part 2 of the Schedule.
Amendment 23, in schedule, page 17, line 4, leave out from “provider” to end of line 7 and insert—
“or a constituent institution of such a provider has the meaning given by section 85(6) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017;”.
This amendment and the Minister’s remaining amendments to Part 2 of the Schedule clarify how section 31 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 applies in relation to constituent institutions of registered higher education providers.
Amendment 24, in schedule, page 17, line 13, at end insert—
“‘constituent institution’, in relation to a registered higher education provider, has the same meaning as in Part A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (see section A3A(4) of that Act);”.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 23.
Amendment 25, in schedule, page 17, line 22, leave out from “provider” to end of line 24 and insert—
“(aa) a constituent institution of such a provider, and”.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 23.
Amendment 26, in schedule, page 17, line 28, at end insert—
“(e) after the definition of ‘qualifying institution’ (inserted by paragraph (d)) insert—
‘“registered higher education provider” has the meaning given by section 3(10)(a) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.’”.—(Michelle Donelan.)
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 23.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 70, in schedule, page 17, line 36, at end insert—
“14A After section 32, insert—
‘32A Section 26(1) duty: exception for higher education providers
For the purposes of section 26(1) of this Act, the obligation to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism shall not apply to any decision made by a registered higher education provider that directly concerns:
(a) the content or delivery of the curriculum;
(b) the provision of library or other teaching resources; or
(c) research carried out by academic staff.’”.
We have had a useful debate on the principles of the Bill. A difference between us has emerged during that debate, which is essentially the difference between those of us who think the Bill is essential, because we think there is a prevailing problem that we need to address—that was reflected to some degree in the evidence we received from Professor Biggar, Dr Ahmed, Professor Kaufmann, Professor Goodwin and so on—and those who take the opposite view, that there is not a problem and, if there is, it can be dealt with by existing means.
My anxiety in all of these matters is to bring clarity to the Government’s intentions. I have made that point throughout. We have been reassured by the Minister a number of times that she is listening to the Committee and will go back and reflect further on the points that have been raised. We have also heard that much will be made clearer in guidance. That is not uncommon in this place. Over many years, as a shadow Minister and Minister, I have encountered many occasions where the implementation of a Bill, particularly when breaking new ground, has required that guidance be issued. It is right and important—if I were the Opposition, I would be making this point—that that guidance is made available at a time that allows it to be scrutinised. I understand that argument, and it is a perfectly reasonable one.
However, equally, from the point of view of good governance, it is important that the guidance—based on the discussions and consultations that will no doubt take place, as the Minister has assured us, between the sector and Government—is iterative and that it reflects those discussions and marks those consultations. I am not as concerned about that as some, because I assume a degree of good will in that respect.
My view about the Bill and the Committee is that, as was said by Members from across the House, our task is to improve the legislation during its passage. That is precisely what I have tried to do in the amendment. For me, it is about certainty and clarity and about establishing an environment where universities and others will be confident that the new regime is one that will deliver the outcomes we want, which is to facilitate and, indeed, to guarantee free speech on campuses across the country.
I am a supporter of the Bill, and the amendment, as hon. Members will see, is a helpful one. It is not designed to do anything other than to improve the legislation. I am also mindful that all Acts are rather different from the Bills they begin as. No Act of Parliament is quite like the Bill that is published; they all metamorphosise during their passage and improve as a result of that metamorphosis. So, the amendment, which is straight- forward, is designed to provide greater clarity, build the certainty I have described and also mark the progress of the Bill. Once the Bill becomes an Act we need to measure its effect. I have argued throughout the Committee for greater clarity, for greater certainty and for more information to be provided.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The amendment talks about the Prevent obligations, which are not an Act in themselves so are subordinate to Acts, not being applied for purposes of research, delivery of the curriculum or teaching. Can the right hon. Gentleman give some examples of how he would want this to be applied? We are not quite yet clear on this side of the Committee about whether that is something we would be positively happy with because we are not clear on how the he sees it being implemented.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman has not only anticipated fully my preliminary remarks, but the essence of my amendment and my speech. I was about to say that my efforts are to improve the legislation and ease its passage to create the certainty and clarity I described. The hon. Gentleman will not necessarily know this, but as Minister for Security at the Home Office, I introduced the Prevent duty. Prevent was a long-standing part of our strategy to deal with counter-terrorism, as he will know, but I introduced the change to oblige local authorities, schools, the health service, community organisations and others to identify, where they might, people who were vulnerable to the overtures of terrorists or who were possibly dangerous already in those terms. We are talking here about potential terrorists and the hon. Gentleman will know that the way the Prevent duty works is that when those people are identified, a process begins, which may end up in them being referred to the Channel programme. The Channel programme is designed to counter the activities of extremists and others who wish to groom those individuals.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Michael Tomlinson)
indicated assent.
Sir John Hayes
I see the Whip is nodding. It is important that we are clear about how the Prevent duty operates in practice; the intent of that duty; and the relationship between that and the provisions of this Bill.
We have already spoken about the necessary consistency in the application of these provisions. We have also spoken about the interaction, the interface between these new legal responsibilities and existing law, particularly in respect of the Equality Act 2010. More generally, it is important that this fits with other legislation when it becomes law. That is always a challenge for the Government because Ministers and Governments inherit a statutory landscape not of their making. That is not always a straightforward process. However, by improving legislation in this metamorphosis we can address that issue. That is what I am trying to do with the amendment. I do not know whether it is perfectly worded; I do not know whether it could be improved.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The right hon. Gentleman has clarified his thinking for me, which is very useful. I am not sure about some of the detailed wording, but that is the point of a probing amendment, is it not? I wonder if he would like to reflect on the interesting contradiction that the Prevent duty does not apply to student unions, but it does apply to the institutions. This amendment applies to both. When the right hon. Gentleman was Minister, did he consider why the Prevent duty was only on the institutions? Why did he not extend that duty to the student unions, and why is he now supporting this Bill, which does the opposite?
Sir John Hayes
I spend a good deal of my time contemplating what I think now, and I occasionally contemplate what I thought once. However, the longer one has lived, the harder that becomes. I could not say with absolute conviction that I recall the considerations I made in years gone by. It is complicated, in my case, by the fact that I have held a lot of different ministerial offices, and dealt with a lot of legislation over a lot of years. I said to the Labour spokesman that I have sat many times where he sits today, and, while it is tough being a Minister, it is pretty tough being a shadow Minister too.
I hope I have made it clear that my intention is positive; good Committees are about responsible progress being made—to that end I do not want to delay the Committee any further. This is a probing amendment to clarify, and make straightforward, the relationship between these legislative imperatives, so that the universities know precisely what is to be done. Finally, I send this signal out again: the Prevent duty is not about curbing free speech, it is about identifying potential terrorists. It is no more or less than that. It should not be under-interpreted, because we need to find those people before they do harm. However, it should not be over-interpreted as a backdoor means of closing down free and open debate.
Matt Western
I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for the clarification in the points he has put forward. I found reading what he was proposing a bit troubling, but I understand much more, having now listened to him and to the responses that have been made by colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman had already alluded to the fact that, under Prevent duties, specified authorities are required to have a due regard to the need to prevent individuals being drawn into terrorism. This applies to higher education institutions, local authority schools and further education institutions, as well as the health sector, prisons, probation and police services. I may have got this wrong, but my understanding was that there was a provision prior to the coalition Government’s introduction of the Prevent duty, and it was an enhancement of this that came in through the office of the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir John Hayes
The difference was the statutory basis of what we did. I think there was a provision prior. Prevent is a longstanding part of the Contest strategy, which is the means by which counter-terrorism efforts are delivered. We specified in statute a new duty—that is the difference.
Matt Western
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the clarification. As he has said, in essence this was a policy introduced by the coalition Conservative Government. I am interested to hear what the Minister’s view is in response to this amendment.
I have read that, in the view of Corey Stoughton, director of advocacy at the human rights organisation Liberty, the tactics of the strategy for monitoring campus activism has had a
“‘chilling effect’ on black and Muslim students, provoking self censorship for fear of being labelled extremist.”
We have to be very careful here, because blanket exemption is just as bad as blanket application. I have looked through the responsibilities of universities, which already have done very well to balance freedom of speech with the Prevent duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and I have discussed how the Nottingham Two incident—the right hon. Gentleman may be familiar with it—played out, and how such situations can be avoided. There must be an obvious method of ensuring that academics can research these subjects, whether it be the cultural impact of drugs or the impact of certain political movements, without the police knocking on the door. I would have thought that an obvious way of avoiding problems and difficult situations on campus would be to introduce processes to allow academics to make their governing bodies and departments aware of their work.
Emma Hardy
I believe I understand what the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is trying to do with this amendment, but I return to our previous point that the big problem with this Bill is how it interacts with other pieces of legislation, and what impact it will have. That is why we talked about putting into the Bill the other pieces of information that we have mentioned. I am sure the Minister will refer us to guidance that is coming shortly to deal with this. The Bill does not exist on its own, so, as my hon. Friend says, the implementation will be incredibly complex. That goes back to the points we made this morning about who the person will be who has to try to decipher this very complicated piece of additional legislation.
Matt Western
Exactly that—it is about how this Bill will play with existing legislation and how the responsibilities will be balanced. The fact, and the overriding argument, is that institutions in the higher education sector have done an amazing job of balancing the obligations and the competing freedoms that exist on our campuses, and they have done so with very few problematic exceptions. It will be interesting to see how this individual and their department will handle that. I do not hold out a huge amount of confidence and hope in what they will do, but I will be interested to see what the Minister says in response to the amendment, and we will hold fire until we have heard her words.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I have a problem with the amendment, because I think there is a lot of misunderstanding around the Prevent agenda. It is one of the four p’s—prevent, pursue, protect and prepare—which are, as the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has just said, part of the Government’s Contest counter-terrorism strategy. The principles that underpin it are democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs, and of those who hold none. I do not understand how it would be a problem for the director or any other institution to have to take into account issues surrounding Prevent.
It would be problematic if we started to take people out of legislation. Prevent is clearly designed to identify individuals who are at risk, and having met—in another role—the people who co-ordinate Prevent, I know that they are very skilled at ensuring that only those who need the programme are put through it. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the vicar, but I am not sure that the amendment would prevent him—pardon the pun—from being referred anyway; that is more about training and ensuring that those whose duty it is to operate Prevent actually understand it. Will we get the odd case of people being referred when they should not be? Possibly, but that does not mean that those cases will be taken any further. I am sure the vicar was not taken any further just because somebody thought that he had failed in the Prevent duties.
I do not think there is any need for the amendment. The principles underpinning Prevent go to the core of the Bill, which talks about freedom of speech, democracy and everything else.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I declare my usual interests with the University of Bradford, the University of Sussex, and the University and College Union.
When I first saw the amendment, I was slightly confused —[Interruption.]
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
When I first saw the amendment, I was slightly confused about its purpose. The idea that the Bill ought to refer to contradicting or overlapping—however one might phrase it—legislation and sets of guidelines is something that we have proposed in previous amendments, which I feel were slightly better worded.
I put it to the Minister that we need in the Bill a recognition that there are contradictory guidelines and that there will be guidelines to explicitly outline how duties and laws at universities will interact. That would relieve of a lot of pressure. We want surety that the guidelines will have that element to them in perpetuity, so that whatever new Government or office comes in, the guidelines will always outline how the Acts and duties interact with each other.
In that sense, I understand and agree with the spirit of the amendment, but the Bill probably needs something that goes further and has more detailed wording. I also understand that there have sometimes been cases in which either the Prevent duty as it is now, or the Prevent programme as it was, was used and had a chilling effect. We have heard that from different organisations. The Nottingham Two have been mentioned; that was a case of a PhD student researcher and a lecturer at the University of Nottingham. The university felt that it was its duty to report them to the police; they were arrested for downloading and disseminating the al-Qaeda manual and were refused bail for a period of time. There has been a lengthy court case on that. Compensation was paid to the two individuals because they were researching how terrorists radicalise people—the very thing we need researchers to be working on.
The law has helped to correct itself through the court process. I am not diminishing the awful effect it must have had on the two researchers, but they have received compensation and to some extent, unfortunately, these things do happen. Most institutions have already corrected their reporting mechanisms to ensure that that kind of thing does not happen. I am sure the example right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings gave us of the chaplain will be a one-off example that will help us to correct in the other direction as well. Those correction moments are sometimes needed, rather than using statute or legislation to do it.
One thing that should perhaps be included in guidelines is some idea of a process for when you are dealing with contradictory things, such as something that might breach the Equality Act but is necessary to talk about difficult issues that are discriminatory, or that might breach the Prevent programme in a literal reading, rather than its intended spirit. It is the same in universities when dealing with issues that might trigger a safeguarding process; a lecturer or researcher would write to the university to explain what they plan to do in order to get prior authorisation.
Mr Jones
There are no key principles for how somebody gets referred to Prevent; it is actually about assessing someone’s vulnerabilities and a pattern of behaviour. There may be an example raising one issue that would automatically get people put into Prevent, but I think the structure is already there.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I totally agree. However, an example might be if a lecturer wishes to run a course about Islamic radicalisation. They might say to the university, “I need some extra safeguards put around this course because of the students it might attract and the topics we might be dealing with. It is important to teach this course for academic rigour, it is important to understand these issues, but it might attract people to join the course for undue reasons.” That is not to stop them from doing it; it is just to make sure there is a safeguarding approach. All of that kind of stuff needs to be in the guidelines, not here. I hope that that is what the Minister will say. I think a safeguarding, prior notification approach is what is needed here.
I did want to touch on the interesting contradiction brought up by this amendment. Prevent—although there is debate about its understanding and its use, I do not think that is relevant here—is an important programme to try to safeguard and stop the radicalisation of people in our country. However, it applies to the institutions, and the institutions cascade to bodies that work within them, such as student unions. It does not apply directly to student unions in terms of the duty. This does, which is an example of where this Bill overreaches.
If the Bill is going to have a deeper, more intrusive reach than the Prevent programme, we need either to revisit the Prevent duty or to say that this Bill is a bit of an overreach, that it is not necessary for it to be regulating as deep down as student unions and student clubs. This amendment helps to highlight that. That is an argument I have made many times in this Committee, so I will not go any further on that point.
Michelle Donelan
Under amendment 70, higher education providers would not have to comply with certain academic decisions such as those concerning delivery of curriculum or research in relation to the Prevent duty. The Government are clear that the Prevent duty should be used not to suppress freedom of speech but to require providers, when exercising their functions, to have due regard for the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. There is no prescription from Government or the Office for Students on what actions providers should take once they have that due regard.
Specific guidance has been published by the Home Office on how higher education providers should comply with the Prevent duty. The legislation imposing the Prevent duty in higher education already specifically requires that providers have particular regard to the duty to ensure freedom of speech and the importance of academic freedom. That means that providers already have special provisions on the application of the Prevent duty to enable them to take proper account of academic freedom, so there is no need for this amendment to go further.
The Government have commissioned an independent review of the Prevent duty and are looking at how effective the statutory the Prevent duty is, to make recommendations for the future. I hope that reassures the Committee.
Sir John Hayes
I find the Minister perpetually reassuring, so that is a good starting point. The anxiety is that research is curbed, materials that might be accessed by students are in some way constrained and activities on campus are curtailed, particularly around research and new courses that, by their nature, are contentious. We have heard some examples so I will not repeat them. There are fears in universities that the authorities will not allow academics to run a course in a controversial area or commission research that might be deemed by some to be awkward or embarrassing. That is not in the spirit of academic freedom that I think we all want to engender in our universities. My intention with the amendment was to protect that academic freedom.
There is a problem with Prevent; I am a great supporter of it, as is the right hon. Member for North Durham, but there is an issue on which the review of Prevent might focus. It is the number of referrals and whether all those referrals are appropriate. That is a different debate for a different place, with different people.
On the basis of the Minister’s reassurance, the healthy debate we have had on the subject and that we need to make progress, with my mission to clarify and bring certainty to this legislation, I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the schedule to the Bill.
Michelle Donelan
The schedule contains minor and consequential amendments to other legislation and is brought to effect by clause 9. As we discussed, the consequential amendments are necessary to give effect to the main provisions of the Bill and make all the legislation work together seamlessly and consistently. Therefore, it will contain amendments to other legislation that are necessary for the operation of the many measures of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 10
Extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michelle Donelan
The clause is a technical provision setting out the extent of the provisions of the Bill. The majority of the Bill extends to England and Wales, but part 2 of the schedule makes a minor technical correction and consequential amendment to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, the relevant part of which extends to England, Wales and Scotland and. As a result, certain provisions in the Bill extend to England, Wales and Scotland. The clause is a necessary technical provision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Commencement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michelle Donelan
The clause sets out the commencement provisions for certain clauses. It provides that clause 6 and related provisions will come into force on the day the Act is passed, to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations under new section 69B(3) and (4) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 in respect of the amount of the penalties that the Office for Students may impose on student unions for breach of freedom of speech duties, and the matters to which the OfS must or must not have regard when imposing such penalties.
Paragraph 7 of the schedule will come into force two months after the legislation has passed, to allow the OfS to consult on changes to its regulatory framework, as required by section 75 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. The early commencement of those provisions will allow time for preparation in advance of the main provisions of the Act coming into force. The other provisions will come into force in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State. Different days may be appointed for different purposes. Such regulations may include transitional provision and savings.
The clause is a necessary technical provision to allow suitable dates for the commencement of various provisions of the legislation when it is passed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Short title
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill
Michelle Donelan
New clause 2 seeks to requires providers to take steps to ensure that student unions have sufficient resource to carry out their duties—
Matt Western
I have a minor point relating to the title. It appears pretty straightforward, but there seems to be a variance in how it is listed. The Education Act 1986 included further and higher education. Perhaps it should be the further and higher education (freedom of speech) Bill. Is that something that the Minister would consider?
Michelle Donelan
We believe that the title of the Bill is correct.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Duties of constituent institutions
“After section A3 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (inserted by section 1) insert—
“Duties of constituent institutions
A3A Duties of constituent institutions
‘(1) Sections A1 to A3 apply in relation to the governing body of a constituent institution of a registered higher education provider as they apply in relation to the governing body of the provider.
(2) Accordingly, in the application of those sections by virtue of subsection (1), references to “the provider” are to be read as references to the constituent institution.
(3) The duties of the governing body of a constituent institution of a registered higher education provider under sections A1 to A3 do not affect the application of any initial or ongoing registration conditions imposed on the provider under Part 1.
(4) In this Part—
“constituent institution”, in relation to a registered higher education provider, means any constituent college, school, hall or other institution of the provider;
“governing body”, in relation to a constituent institution of a registered higher education provider, has the same meaning as in Part 1 of this Act.’”—(Michelle Donelan.)
This new clause secures that the new duties relating to freedom of speech apply to colleges and other constituent institutions of registered higher education providers in England.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Providers’ duty to ensure adequate resources for students’ unions
“After section A5 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (inserted by section 2) insert—
‘A5A Resourcing of students’ unions
The provider must take steps to ensure that students’ unions have sufficient resources to carry out their duties under sections A4 and A5 of this Act.’”—(Matt Western.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matt Western
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This important provision is all about having sufficient resources. As we have debated at some length, student unions will bear a considerable burden of cost and resource to make the duties work on campuses. It is an administrative burden that hitherto they have managed to cope with, but this greatly exceeds what they would have done in the past.
We have to remind ourselves that we are talking about the full plethora of institutions from larger universities to smaller higher education institutions and further education colleges. The Department for Education’s impact assessment quotes a cost to student unions of £800,000 a year to implement and update the code of practice. The impact assessment also makes it clear that student unions will face the heaviest burden because of their unfamiliarity with the new administrative requirements; most universities already have in place good codes of practice on freedom of speech.
The Bill disproportionately affects a variety of SUs, such as those at FE colleges. The Association of Colleges points out in its briefing that 165 FE colleges are registered higher education providers on the Office for Students’ list. The recent submission by Durham University, which I am sure is of particular interest to two Committee members, makes it clear that clause 6 could represent a significant additional administrative burden on organisations. Jim Dickinson of Wonkhe highlighted in his submission that
“the funding and resultant capacity and capability of an SU to undertake these duties is usually wholly dependent on a negotiation between the SU and the provider. Without a duty on the provider to resource the SU appropriately to carry out the duty there is a material risk that they will be unable to. Vexatious complaints surrounding, for example, SU elections may not succeed but would cause an SU committee to need to seek costly legal advice which it may not be funded to obtain.”
Given that the Government have voted down all our attempts to amend the Bill in a satisfactory manner, the new clause is a form of backstop to ensure that the legislation will not challenge the viability of SUs up and down the country through the need to withstand these costs and the potential for vexatious litigants. The new clause is yet another constructive amendment that we want included in the Bill to recognise the immense financial burden and responsibility faced by student unions in the wide mix of institutions and colleges that the measures will affect. We think it important that the Government recognise that student unions will face that burden, which could seriously affect their viability.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
In local government, the health service, education and other areas, there is a doctrine known as the new burden doctrine. It is a sensible doctrine whereby if a new burden is put upon a body—particularly in local government and in educational bodies under local government—the Government shall make provision to pay for that new burden, or they will provide for that body to be able to raise revenue to cover the new burden.
Higher education institutions have income-raising capacity, although I am sure they would say that the cap should be lifted or the funding formula should be changed. They can make that an argument to the Chancellor at the spending review, and I know that many of them have. I desperately hope that the burden is not put on poorer students, as we are reading in the papers. Personally, I would move to a proper graduate tax, or even free education. A new graduate tax could be introduced for the young, and an old-age social care tax for those who are older, so we could have one joint intergenerational tax that allows a bit of intergenerational solidarity—but I digress.
Despite my desire for free education or a proper graduate tax that does not put people in debt, universities can go and make their case to the Chancellor. They have powers to raise revenue, either by seeking research funding or through student fees. They can get more students in, in fact—they could squeeze two or three more students into lecture halls. Student unions have none of those abilities. They do not, on the whole, raise revenue. Some, which are now the exception, still run some commercial businesses, but that is a rarity in higher education—even in campus universities. Most campus university student unions do not even run their own bars now.
Government Members who think that student unions can raise the money need to look again at student union finances, the vast majority of which come from the good will of the institution. The problem is that if the institution deprives the student union of money, the financial penalty for that student union and its duty do not transfer back to the institution; the liability is not reduced. I suspect that the liability will be covered by the student union’s paying basic insurance, but if it is deprived of money it will have no ability to pay for that, while still having the liability.
The new clause does not specify an amount; all it says is that the institution, in appointing the student union—because it appoints the body that is the student union; its job is to say, “This is our registered student union”—has to make sure that the student union has sufficient resources. If the student union has bars and commercial services, the institution can say, “We’ve ensured that you have the right resources because we can see that you have an income. No problem.” If the student union has none of those resources, all the new clause requires is that the institution takes steps to ensure that it has. Perhaps it will give a bar over to the student union to run, so that it generates the resources, or perhaps it will give over an amount of money. The new clause requires that to happen. The guidelines will explain how that happens, of course, but without this provision I am deeply worried that we will be imposing a new burden.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I have been reading the impact assessment and I can quite understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. It suggests that the annual enforcement costs would be around £400,000 a year and that the total ongoing costs directly applying to student unions would be £1.2 million a year nationwide. However, there are over 100 academic institutions and many student unions across the country; if we divide that cost by 100 academic institutions, we are not talking about a huge amount of money per institution. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that student unions should be able to deal with the small extra costs?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I go back to my point. This is not a huge burden on institutions, but we should require institutions to ensure that there are those resources, given that some student unions have almost zero resources—only a few hundred pounds in the bank account. For many student unions there will be no problem, but provision will be needed for others. The new clause just says to the institution, “Check that your student union can do this.” It might just be a matter of a few hundred pounds for the insurance premium. It is fair for the institution to be required to do that. I hope the Minister will take that on board, either in the guidelines or in Lords amendments.
Emma Hardy
I try not to get cross, Mrs Cummins, but I am going to get a little bit cross now, and then calm down again.
As I have said many times, this whole Bill has been written with Oxford, Cambridge and all the Russell Group universities in mind. The intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown by the hon. Member for North West Durham reinforces that view. I keep going back to the 165 FE colleges that are affected by the Bill. How is a small FE college with no full-time student union representatives or independent income going to pay the insurance costs? The assumption is that all will need insurance to cover themselves against any liability. How will they be able to afford that and keep going if all the Bill applies to them?
The Minister says that the provision has to apply to FE colleges because they are higher education institutions, but it does not directly apply to junior common rooms. I will not repeat the long debate that we had about that, but if there is one rule for JCRs, why not look again at further education colleges? All the new clause does is say that there must be adequate resources. I said on Monday that the outcome of the Bill could be the creation of shell-like structures of student unions outside all the ones that can afford it—those of the Russell Group and Oxford and Cambridge. Beyond that, student unions would not exist in any meaningful way, which would be a travesty.
Michelle Donelan
Earlier, I was too eager to get to new clause 2. The new clause would require providers to take steps to ensure that student unions have sufficient resources to carry out their duties under proposed new sections A4 and A5 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.
There is universal agreement about the importance of freedom of speech in university life. We saw that in the evidence sessions. There is also broad consensus about the important role that student unions play in protecting freedom of speech on campuses. Many student unions do fantastic work in that area, including having their own codes of practice, which often involve collaborative relationships with the provider. We fully expect that to continue, and for providers and student unions to work together, hand in hand, in relation to freedom of speech. That may include, where appropriate, a provider taking steps to ensure its student union is adequately resourced to carry out its duties. It may also involve the sharing of good practice, or a provider assisting the student union with the development of its own code of practice.
The measures are about protecting fundamental principles, not creating more red tape. There is huge diversity among student unions in the ways they are established and funded, reflecting the huge variety in the higher education sector as a whole and in further education. It is important that we reflect that variety in the Bill and do not seek to regulate the relationship between providers and student unions with a one-size-fits-all policy. Some student unions are heavily reliant on funding from their university; others may be more financially independent. Many have developed innovative portfolios as a way to generate income to contribute to a fulfilling university experience for students. The amendment does not reflect that variety or the differing, often complex arrangements that exist between providers and their student unions.
It is also important to note that the duties in proposed new sections A4 and A5 apply only to student unions of approved fee cap providers. Student unions of small, specialist providers that are not approved fee cap providers are not in scope of the Bill. In that way, we are ensuring that the Bill’s measures are not overly bureaucratic and follow the approach in the Education Act 1994, which sets out regulatory requirements relating to student unions at a number of institutions, including approved fee cap providers, but not other providers. In contrast, new clause 2 would place an additional, unnecessary regulatory requirement on providers in relation to student unions. In addition, we expect that there will be guidance from the Office for Students in due course that will help student unions to understand how to comply with their duties and assist them in drafting their code of practice.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
If the student union has nothing more than a petty cash box and no staff or sabbatical officers—there are some such student unions—how does the Minister suggest that they draft a professional code of conduct without the institution ensuring that they have the resources to do so? The new clause does not talk about cash; it could be secondment of staff.
Michelle Donelan
I thank the hon. Member for that very good point. While not wanting to predetermine the work of the new director, I fully anticipate that they will look at drawing up templates of such codes of practice to assist.
I trust that I have been able to reassure the Committee that we are taking appropriate and proportionate actions to ensure that student unions can address freedom of speech in a way that is not overly bureaucratic and that reflects the variety in their composition, size and financial arrangements.
Matt Western
I hear the Minister, but the Opposition believe that it will lead to considerable red tape, even if there are templates to be adopted and so on. I just do not believe that many student unions would be able to cope. There will be associated stresses and certainly great costs, such as the insurance we picked up on the other day. The right hon. Lady talks about there being many student unions that have developed innovative revenue raising. Perhaps there are a number of such cases—I would be interested to know how many there have been among the hundreds we are talking about—but we will press the clause to a vote, because we think there is serious concern about the viability of student unions.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6—Sunset clause—
“(1) This Act expires at the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.
(2) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations made by statutory instrument remove any of the provisions of this Act after one year from the day on which it is passed if he is not satisfied that the provision is working as intended.
(3) Before three years from the day on which this Act is passed a Minister of the Crown must present to Parliament a written report on the effectiveness of the provisions of the Act.
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations made by statutory instrument renew this Act, subject to parliamentary approval in full or in part, or make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the expiry of any provision of this Act.
(5) Regulations under this section shall be subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would mean the legislation would have to be renewed by Parliament after a period of three years.
Matt Western
The purpose behind new clause 3 is straightforward: it is to ensure that the effectiveness of the legislation is formally reviewed, certainly within a year of it’s being passed. Professor Jonathan Grant said in his evidence:
“What I wait to see—I cannot answer this; I am speculating––is whether the legislation will have an impact on that 25% of people who feel that they cannot say what they want to and whether it will change the behaviours of lecturers in the classroom to get more balanced reading lists. I hope that is the case, but we do not know at this stage. If this legislation leads to that, then it has been successful.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 122, Q264.]
There are pretty substantial markers of success. Barring Dr Harris’s absurd belief that
“all this Bill needs to do to be successful is to cause a momentary pause. It needs to cause a degree of reflection.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 82, Q175.],
which I would suggest is a marker of success so low that, on this basis, the legislation ought to be passed continually to allow moments of self-reflection, we need to monitor the progression of the , how it is going to work and how it may work once it is, we assume, passed.
If the Government are, as the Committee is saying they are, so keen on the promotion of free speech, surely they would be inclined to allow annual monitoring and to tweak the Bill as necessary—for example, if there is vexatious litigation or confusion among students about which body they should complain to. New clause 3 simply seeks a review by the Education Committee looking into the effectiveness of the Bill’s provisions.
New clause 6, which stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, is a straightforward sunset clause of the type that much legislation includes. It states that this legislation should expire after three years beginning on the day it is passed, in view of our belief that it will not work. We are doing our best to be constructive about how it could work better and to mitigate its worst impacts, but we believe it is important to include this sunset clause. It would also give the Minister the power to remove provisions that were acting against the interest of free speech. I am reminded of how my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham described the chilling effect as a blancmange. If that is so, why not embed the equivalent amount of flexibility in the Bill?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I put my name to the new clause as a point of principle, because I believe that we accumulate legislation—it builds up—but we never really review it properly to see whether it is effective enough and whether it needs proper amendment. This is basically a pragmatic administrative clause that, as my hon. Friend said, appears in many pieces of legislation.
I do not believe the Bill is necessary in this form—I think other actions should be taken—but if we are to pass legislation such as this, an awful lot of the issues will be addressed by regulation and guidance. The new clause gives the opportunity for a review within three years to see whether the legislation as a whole is working effectively, which parts of if are working effectively, and which parts are not and need to be dropped or amended. It is a straightforward administrative mechanism that I believe should be contained in most legislation, to prevent the pile-up of unnecessary burdens.
Michelle Donelan
As we have heard, new clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to invite a Select Committee of the House of Commons to review the effectiveness of the provisions of the Bill at least once a year, whereas new clause 6 would make the Bill subject to a sunset clause, so it would expire three years after the date of enactment unless a report is made to Parliament and regulations are made to renew the Act. It would also Ministers to remove provisions of the Bill one year after enactment if they are not working as intended.
On new clause 3, I can assure Members that the Department for Education will work with the sector to ensure that the measures are properly implemented, and we will review the legislation in the usual way with a post-implementation review. There are also provisions in the Bill as drafted that will help to measure its effectiveness once it comes into force.
Clause 4 provides that the Secretary of State may require the Office for Students to report on freedom of speech and academic freedom matters in its annual report or a special report. The report must be laid before Parliament, so that Parliament and the sector can scrutinise it. Equally, paragraph 12 of new schedule 6A to the 2017 Act and clause 7 of the Bill provide that the Secretary of State may request the OfS to conduct a review of the complaints scheme or its operation, and to report on the results. We therefore do not think it necessary to add yet more provision in the Bill to include a requirement for a Select Committee to conduct an annual review of the effectiveness of the Bill. It is worth noting that the current freedom of speech duties in section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 do not have such a requirement, and nor does the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which is being amended by the Bill, so there is no precedent in this context.
Emma Hardy
May we return to the issue of the Select Committee and whether it will have a pre-appointment hearing for the freedom of speech director? Will the Select Committee be able to call the director to give evidence and to have scrutiny, as it did with the leader of Ofsted, Amanda Spielman?
Michelle Donelan
A pre-appointment scrutiny hearing is the prerogative of the Government. The Government could decide that, but it does not need to be on the face of the Bill. As for whom the Select Committee calls, I fully anticipate that once the new director is in office, the Select Committee will want to speak directly to them.
Turning to new clause 6, we do not think it would be right or appropriate to set a sunset clause in the Bill. Equally, it would not be right to allow Ministers to remove provisions in the Bill by way of regulations only one year after Parliament had approved the Act, when there has not been enough time for the Act to bed in. A sunset clause for a whole Act would be extremely unusual and considered appropriate only in very particular circumstances. We see no reason why the Bill should be treated differently from the majority of other primary legislation.
The Government believe that the Bill is important and necessary. It must be allowed to take effect in the sector to deal with the issues, so that we no longer have cases of freedom of speech and academic freedom being wrongly restricted. If we do have instances of that, those affected must be able to seek redress. We must have a change of culture on our campuses and create a climate of accountability for decision making, to ensure that our universities are places where debate can thrive. I trust that the Committee will agree with me that these amendments are not necessary and the Bill should be allowed to do its work once it is enacted.
Matt Western
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, we believe that the amendments are quite straightforward. We should be trying to avoid the piling up of legislation The point has been made many times by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that, for decades, Conservative Governments have claimed that they are reducing red tape and ridding this country of legislation, but here we are again. We seem to be living under what is perhaps the most authoritarian Conservative Government ever. They are introducing more and more legislation and burdens on those who can ill afford it.
We thought that a sunset clause was a very straightforward suggestion. We believe that the Select Committee should have more of a role to play, and why not? Surely the purpose of having a Select Committee is to conduct scrutiny of the work of the Department and agents within the sector; and surely the director of free speech should be part of the scrutiny by that Committee. We will therefore wish to press new clause 6 to a vote.
Question put and negatived.
New Clause 4
Other student bodies
“After section A4 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (inserted by section 2) insert—
“A4A Application of students’ union provisions to other student bodies
(1) In this Part, where a provision applies to a students’ union, it should also be taken to apply to any other student body.
(2) For the purposes of this section “other student body” means—
(a) any Junior Common Room or Middle Common Room of a constituent institution; and
(b) any club or society made up of students at a higher education institution, whether or not the club or society is affiliated to the students’ union.””—(Matt Western.)
This amendment would expand the definition of a student body to include any Junior Common room or Middle Common room of a constituent institution or any club or society at a higher education institution, regardless of whether student union affiliation requirements have been complied with.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Unfair dismissal in violation of academic freedom—
“(1) A member of academic staff of a higher education provider who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is any act or omission by the provider which contravenes the duty in Section A1.
(2) For the purposes of dismissals under subsection (1), Section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Qualifying period of employment) shall not apply.
(3) Notwithstanding Section 124 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Limit of compensatory award etc.), there shall be no limit on the level of compensation that can be awarded in cases of unfair dismissal in violation of academic freedom.
(4) Section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Interim relief pending determination of complaint) shall apply in cases of dismissals under subsection (1).”
This new clause would render a violation of clause 1 in employment practice as unfair dismissal, regardless of the period of employment at a higher education provider, with no cap on the level of compensation. Interim relief would be available to complainants in such cases.
Fiona Bruce
New clause 5 would ensure that employment tribunals had jurisdiction to hear claims relating to the duty in new section A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. This Bill has been introduced in part because of the high-profile instances of academics being dismissed. Many of the controversial examples have involved extramural speech rather than research or teaching, which again emphasises the importance of our earlier discussion grappling with the proper ambit of protection of academic freedom
The Committee will recall that Kathleen Stock, who gave oral evidence, faced calls for her dismissal due to her gender critical views. In 2019, we heard about Sarah Honeychurch, a lecturer who was sacked as editor of the academic journal Hybrid Pedagogy after signing an open letter to The Sunday Times criticising LGBT training in universities. What legal remedy do such academics currently have? One may argue that higher education providers, as public authorities, could be judicially reviewed, but judicial reviews are often prohibitively expensive, particularly for junior academics. Moreover, judicial review does not ordinarily review the merits of an decision, but more usually involves consideration of whether the correct procedures have been followed, which may still not capture some of the mischiefs identified by the Government before introducing the Bill.
Crucially, there is a real risk that, even if they were able to pursue a claim in the High Court, a dismissed academic may not be able to claim dismissal-related losses if they were dismissed due to an exercise of their lawful free speech and academic freedom. In the case of Johnson v. Unisys Ltd, the House of Lords took the view that the clear intent of Parliament was that dismissal-related cases and claims of a similar nature
“should be decided by specialist tribunals, not the ordinary courts of law.”
That is why I have tabled this modest but hugely significant amendment. We must ensure that those who have been dismissed due to the exercise of academic freedom have an appropriate route of challenge in the employment tribunal—a venue that has the relevant specialisms to deal with dismissal claims, recognising the spirit of and understanding the letter of the law the Bill will introduce. Employment tribunals also have appropriate procedures to simply and significantly reduce the cost burden of claims, especially when compared with the complexity and expense of claims in other proceedings, such as judicial review proceedings.
It may be argued that employment tribunals already deal with claims concerning free speech and that is correct, but invariably such claims must be linked to a protected characteristic, in particular freedom of religion or belief, which has a very specific meaning in equality and discrimination law. I anticipate that most academics would not ordinarily be able to argue that their academic viewpoint springs from their philosophical or religious beliefs, and nor should they have to. Academic freedom is there to ensure that academics have the space to rigorously test and develop new ideas. Dismissal on that basis ought to qualify for specific and special protection with meaningful remedies.
The amendment would address that problem and is consistent with evidence we heard, such as the recommendations from Tom Simpson, who said, for example,
“would seriously support considering introducing the employment tribunal as the first court to consider cases of dismissal in that situation, in addition to the existing measures in here.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 72, Q149.]
I spoke about the Bill to associate professor in the faculty of law at Oxford, Paul Yowell, and I thank him for his time. He particularly emphasised how important he considers such an amendment. I take the opportunity to refer colleagues to his Policy Exchange paper published in the last few days, “The Future of Equality”.
In his evidence, Professor Goodwin astutely pointed out:
“If the current system with regard to sacking and dismissal were working, we would not be having this conversation. We would not have had dozens of academics appearing in the newspapers. There was another one this weekend from the University of Bristol who was accused of being Islamophobic. The university had ruled that he was not Islamophobic, but had none the less removed his course in response to student satisfaction.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 96, Q195.]
He said “satisfaction”, but I think it might have been dissatisfaction. In any event, the academic’s course was removed in response to comments from students.
Mr Jones
Like the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, the hon. Lady obviously reads a lot into individual cases that are highlighted in the press. I have some sympathy with her new clause, but it would not prevent people from being appointed. People would find other reasons for debarring people from applying. Could she address the issue of tenure? Employment tribunals deal in contract law—contracts between individuals—but tenure is slightly different. Would the new clause require a change to the way tenure is given to academics?
Fiona Bruce
That may require some consideration, but as I am sure the right hon. Member knows, tenure is attained only after very many years of often insecure academic life on the part of academics, and that is one of the issues of which we need to be acutely aware when looking at the Bill.
Mr Jones
I am aware of that, but if somebody who has tenure is dismissed from a university because of their views, they would not actually be protected by new clause 5. Although I agree with what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, it may be difficult to achieve because of the issues around tenure.
Fiona Bruce
I am not entirely taking the right hon. Gentleman’s point—it probably requires some reflection on my part—but I thank him for raising it, and no doubt the Minister might do the same.
Professor Nigel Biggar noted that
“appeal to the courts is expensive and risky. It seems to me that academics who have lost their job ought to have readier access to lodge a complaint than through the courts.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 31, Q62.]
I hope the Minister will consider my comments.
Matt Western
I understand the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Congleton, and I appreciate the sentiment, but I disagree with how new clause 5 is worded, because implicit in its words is quite a narrow conception of unfair dismissal. New clause 13 is broader and affords greater protections, and I hope that the hon. Lady will support it.
Several witnesses underlined why the inclusion of employment law provisions in this conversation is so important. When questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown on whether employment law would be a better basis for defining some of these rights, Professor Stephen Whittle responded with a categorical yes. In her evidence, lawyer Smita Jamdar said:
“there are often cases where there is a very vigorous disagreement about whether something was an exercise of academic freedom or not when it relates to criticism of the institution.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 57, Q110.]
Employees need the full protection of the law, which is what new clause 13 seeks to provide. Employees would not have to conform to the stringent requirements for bringing an unfair dismissal claim—usually, a two-year qualification period and a range of reasonable responses test, which is construed broadly, often in favour of the employer. They also would not be subject to capped damages awards. There was cross-witness support for this, including from Thomas Simpson, who said:
“I would seriously support considering introducing the employment tribunal as the first court to consider cases of dismissal in that situation, in addition to the existing measures in here.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 72, Q149.]
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) said:
“We should allow academics to appeal not just through the civil law but to an employment tribunal if their academic freedom is restricted.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 76.]
New clause 13 is actually an extrapolation of new clause 5. We think that it is broader.
Matt Western
I am not a lawyer. I would hope that it would be, but my hon. Friend may well be right that it may not be covered. That would be its intent. The concern is about the vulnerability of academics in terms of their tenure and whether they will have the protections that others already have.
I hope the amendment covers that. If it does not, then perhaps this is something we should revisit. I hope the hon. Member for Congleton will recognise that our new clause is an enhanced version of what she is proposing and vote with us.
Michelle Donelan
New clauses 5 and 13 seek to provide that a dismissal and breach of the new section A1 duty is specifically to be treated as an automatically unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. New clause 13 further seeks to disapply the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal in these cases, removing the limit on the level of compensation that can be awarded and applying provisions allowing claimants to seek interim relief, pending determination of their claim.
Let me be clear that the Bill does not stop employees in higher education from taking their claims to employment tribunals. In doing so, employment tribunals may consider questions of freedom of speech and academic freedom and alleged breaches of the section A1 duty in that context, although the Bill does not give them the jurisdiction to hear freedom of speech cases.
The current two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal is intended to strike the right balance between fairness for employees and flexibility for employers, to ensure that employers are not discouraged from taking on new staff.
Mr Jones
I am very interested in what the Minister just said. It is clear that an employment tribunal can be held on sex discrimination grounds or on other grounds, but could she point out in present employment law where it states that someone would be able to bring an industrial tribunal on the basis that they were discriminated against because of freedom of speech? I am not aware of such a law.
Michelle Donelan
As I said, tribunals cannot take a freedom of speech case per se, but if there were evidence of discrimination on the grounds of freedom of speech in the case that they were taking, that could be heard. I can come back to the right hon. Gentleman with the details of that after the Committee, but I cannot point out the exact line of the legislation on the spot.
Mr Jones
As I understand it, an industrial tribunal case could not be taken on the grounds that someone had been dismissed because their freedom of speech had been infringed. That is a problem that came out in the evidence. A tribunal could be brought on the basis of sex discrimination and for other reasons, but if the sole reason for a tribunal was that someone thought they were being dismissed because of their views and that their freedom of speech was being questioned, I am not sure such a tribunal would have jurisdiction over that, given present employment law. If the Minister does not know, I am happy that she writes to the Committee.
Michelle Donelan
The point I am trying to make is that an employment tribunal will determine whether a dismissal was fair or unfair, depending on the specific circumstances of the case. Therefore, it may take into account breaches of academic freedom of speech. The Bill does not amend employment law in this regard and we do not think it would be appropriate to make dismissal because of a breach of the new duties an automatic unfair dismissal.
The Bill does, however, give new protections to academic staff, including those who may not have employee status or who have been employed for less than two years. It therefore broadens the scope of the current provision section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, to ensure that visiting fellows, for example, have the freedom to research and teach on issues that may be controversial or challenging, without the risk of losing their post.
The Bill provides new specific routes of redress for those without employee status, including a complaints scheme operated by the Office for Students and a statutory tort. I hope that Members are reassured that the Bill strengthens protections for academic staff and employees. It expands the range of available routes of complainants and ensures that a wide range of individuals are able to secure redress.
Fiona Bruce
I hear what the Minister says, as well as the comments from other Members, but there is still a lack of clarity. The Minister said that an employment tribunal will decide if a dismissal has been fair or not fair, and may take into account academic freedom.
Sir John Hayes
The emphasis here is on “may take into account”, in my hon. Friend’s words. The important thing is that those tribunals understand both the spirit and letter of the law that the Bill will become, and that the context that she set out is well understood by all concerned.
Fiona Bruce
The Government might want to continue to consider this issue as the Bill progresses.
Mr Jones
I am now a bit confused by what the Minister has said. Tribunal cases are done on case law. I am not aware of any case law in which unfair dismissal has been upheld on the basis of a freedom of speech issue, so I am at a loss as to what the Minister has said. However, I agree with the hon. Lady that this is something that needs to be looked at in detail on Report.
Fiona Bruce
I agree; the Government should consider the matter in the light of the nature of academic contracts, which have been discussed in the course of the Committee’s proceedings.
I will not press new clause 5 to a vote, but I do ask the Minister to consider the matter carefully and to be aware that it is likely that colleagues in the House may want to revisit it as the Bill proceeds. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Sunset clause
“(1) This Act expires at the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.
(2) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations made by statutory instrument remove any of the provisions of this Act after one year from the day on which it is passed if he is not satisfied that the provision is working as intended.
(3) Before three years from the day on which this Act is passed a Minister of the Crown must present to Parliament a written report on the effectiveness of the provisions of the Act.
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations made by statutory instrument renew this Act, subject to parliamentary approval in full or in part, or make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the expiry of any provision of this Act.
(5) Regulations under this section shall be subject to the affirmative procedure.”—(Matt Western.)
This new clause would mean the legislation would have to be renewed by Parliament after a period of three years.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Emma Hardy
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I believe that we have debated the issue of guidance at length, so I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Harassment
“In section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, after subsection (4)(c) insert—
‘(d) When the case concerns the conduct of academic staff of a registered higher education provider, the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom, as provided for under Part A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (as inserted by section 1 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2021).’”—(Matt Western.)
This new clause amends the Equality Act 2010 so that, in deciding whether the conduct of academic staff of a registered higher education provider constitutes harassment, the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom must be taken into account.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matt Western
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), said on Second Reading that
“the right to lawful free speech will remain balanced by the important safeguards against harassment, abuse and threats of violence as set out in the Equality Act 2010, the Prevent duty and other legislation, none of which we are changing.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 49.]
We need to ensure that we embed that balance in harassment provisions in the Bill.
During the evidence sessions, Professor Biggar said:
“The tension arises around the definition of harassment. It is quite right that those with protected characteristics should be protected from harassment. The problem is that harassment is often interpreted by universities—not so much by courts—in such a fashion that dissent from, disagreement with and criticism of becomes harassment. That is obviously a dampener on free speech. The Bill will not resolve that”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 7 September 2021; c. 30, Q59.]
New clause 12 seeks to harmonise the relationship between promoting academic freedom and freedom of speech with the legal concept of harassment in a way that could act as a counterweight to potentially expansive interpretations of harassment by universities and management. Professor Whittle said:
“The Equality Act provides little protection for anybody who feels that their rights are being disturbed by somebody else’s freedom of speech.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 43, Q80.]
Dr Bryn Harris said that
“the explanatory notes of the 2010 Act, as enacted, quite clearly say that in making findings of harassment, courts should take into account academic freedom. I think there is a lot that can be done that would not substantially change the Equality Act, but that would clarify how it applies in the academic context.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 80, Q169.]
Once again, we are seeking to clarify and tighten the legislation on harassment, which is why we tabled new clause 12.
Michelle Donelan
New clause 12 seeks to amend the provisions relating to harassment in the Equality Act 2010, which defines it as
“unwanted conduct which is related to a relevant characteristic and has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the complainant or of violating the complainant’s dignity.”
The new clause would provide that where a case concerns the conduct of an academic staff member of a registered higher education provider, in deciding whether the conduct has that effect, the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom must be taken into account. The new clause would amend section 26 of the Equality Act—the general definition of harassment that applies to all areas covered by the Equality Act—rather than chapter 2 of part 6, which deals with further and higher education.
It is already the case that when considering a claim of harassment, courts and tribunals must balance competing rights on the facts of a particular case, which could include the right of freedom of expression, as set out in article 10 of the European convention on human rights, and academic freedom. The explanatory notes to the Equality Act state that specifically in relation to determining the effect of unwanted conduct. Guidance has made it clear that the harassment provision should not be used to undermine academic freedom.
It is also important to note that, under the Equality Act, harassment has both a subjective and an objective element. It is not just based on the views of the person making the complaint. The Act provides that, in deciding the effect of the unwanted conduct, the complainant’s perception must be taken into account, but so too must the circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
New clause 12 would potentially override that by adding a new factor that must be taken into account when deciding whether the conduct of a member of academic staff at a higher education provider constitutes harassment: the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom. As a result, it could alter the balance that constitutes unlawful harassment and undermine existing protections from harassment in the Equality Act.
I believe that the terms of the Equality Act already address the concerns raised by the new clause, and it would not be appropriate to amend it in that way. It is, of course, vital that freedom of speech generates rigorous debate and advances understanding. To uphold freedom of speech in higher education, students and staff members must be able to express ideas within the law that may be controversial, unpalatable or even deeply offensive. As such, students’ learning experience may well include exposure to course material, discussions or speakers’ views that they find offensive or unacceptable, but that is unlikely to be considered harassment under the Equality Act.
I hope Members are reassured by that and agree that the new clause is not necessary. As ever, we have sought in the Bill to strike an appropriate balance between protecting individuals from harassment on the one hand and securing lawful freedom of speech on the other. Amending the Equality Act in this way would risk unsettling that balance.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Michelle Donelan
On a point of order, Mrs Cummins. I will take this opportunity to thank you and our other Chair for your excellent chairing of this Committee. I also thank all the Clerks, who have facilitated our Committee, and all hon. Members for the very productive and extensive debate on each of the measures in the Bill.
Matt Western
Further to that point of order, Mrs Cummins. I will just add my thanks to you and to Sir Christopher Chope for your sterling work as Chairs of this Committee.
I also express thanks to both the Clerks for their great assistance in assembling the amendments; it was the first time I had to do that, so I greatly appreciated the support and direction that they gave me. I thank the Whips for putting all the work of the Committee together, and I thank all members of the Committee for the spirit of engagement that we have had.
Sir John Hayes
Further to that point of order, Mrs Cummins. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington proposed me earlier as the spokesman of the ordinary members of this Committee, or something like that, so I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for the way that they have performed in this Committee. It is always a challenge for both Ministers and shadow Ministers to maintain the attention of those of us who do not hold those great offices, but they have done so with style and aplomb.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Cruise Industry
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking. This is line with current Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of the cruise industry to the economy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford.
They say you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone, and perhaps that should have been the theme of the pandemic. In Southampton, as well as in many other ports around the country, that was never more stark than when we saw the empty berths where once many cruise ships were tied up while embarking and disembarking passengers. Cruise ships have created an ever-changing landscape in Southampton, as the many and varied ships rotate through the port, and when that was missing it was extremely noticeable.
Cruise operations are of huge significance to the UK’s economy. The port of Southampton is the home of the UK cruise industry and the leading cruise turnaround port in Europe. Last year, the majority of all UK cruise passengers passed through Southampton, with the port accounting for 83% of all cruise passengers in 2019. However, it is not the only port to benefit from cruise: Portsmouth, just down the road, Dover, Tilbury, Newcastle, Dundee, Edinburgh, Belfast and Liverpool all benefit from the revenue that cruise brings to their local economies. It is estimated that each turnaround visit for a cruise ship in Southampton brings £2.7 million to the local economy, and much of that will stay local. Its importance cannot be underestimated.
Southampton is like many post-industrial cities of the north, which is why you will hear me repeat that levelling up is not about geography but about opportunity. My constituents depended on manufacturing jobs, from shipbuilding to motor manufacturing. Southampton was the home of the famous Ford Transit van, but Ford, Vosper Thornycroft and Pirelli Cables & Systems are all long gone. That is why the port of Southampton and the cruise industry are so important to our economy and the employment prospects of my constituents.
In a port city like Southampton, one is never more than a few feet away from someone who makes a living from or has their standard of living enhanced by the cruise industry: from Solent Stevedores to the many taxi drivers, dozens of suppliers, Associated British Ports operators, students with jobs in hospitality and retirees working in the terminals during busy times—part time, full time, young and old. The cruise industry in Southampton is integral to our economic success.
However, it is not just our local economy that benefits from the cruise industry. Cruising brings in over £10 billion per year to the UK economy and supports nearly 90,000 jobs. In December last year, Cruise Lines International Association told the Transport Committee that pausing cruise operations between March and September 2020 resulted in £6.7 billion of lost expenditure and 52,000 job losses. Carnival Cruise Line alone employs over 1,100 people at its UK headquarters in Southampton and has over 2,000 British seagoing officers. That is not insignificant. We can calculate the economic benefits, but it is more difficult to put a price on the joy that cruising brings. In 2019, before the pandemic struck, nearly 2 million passengers passed through the port of Southampton alone. This figure is expected to grow to 4 million a year by 2050, and ports are already investing to take advantage of that growth.
Recently, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), opened the port of Southampton’s fifth and latest cruise terminal, aptly named Horizon. The state-of-the-art terminal is fitted with more than 2,000 solar panels on the roof, generating more power than it uses, and it has shore power for ships to plug into while in port.
The demographic of the cruise market has changed. No longer is it the preserve of older people and wealthy pensioners; it is now the fastest-growing sector of the tourism industry and is particularly popular with families. During the efforts to restart cruise, the industry worked closely with the Minister and Government and welcomed the Prime Minister’s roadmap out of lockdown. Domestic cruises were permitted again from 17 May this year, and the cruise industry has gone on to demonstrate how safe it is and how prepared it was to resume its operations. It has introduced stringent measures to keep passengers and crew safe. The UK Chamber of Shipping published a covid-19 framework for the industry that made cruise ships the safest environment in the travel and hospitality sector. Those measures include pre-embarkation health checks, masks and social distancing, and guests are encouraged to use hand-washing facilities and hand sanitiser dispensers at venue entrances. Cruise ships also have excellent medical facilities, including intensive care units on most ships. All adult passengers are required to be double vaccinated, as are the crew. Although it was disappointing that the increase in covid infections last winter meant that cruises were unable to resume, the industry used that extended period to further improve its protocols, learning from the pandemic as it progressed.
While we understand and acknowledge the disappointment of those who saw their holidays cancelled during the pandemic, we should not overlook the awful time that crew have experienced. The depressing sight of cruise ships anchored off the south coast, visiting a port every few weeks to offload waste and take on fuel and supplies, will be one of the most enduring and disturbing images of the pandemic.
Many crew members have also found themselves disadvantaged by the loss of the seafarers earnings deduction. Seafarers are normally entitled to a deduction from their tax bill; however, this is linked to time spent at sea outside of the UK. Through no fault of their own, many failed to meet the required qualifying period. The Government will therefore benefit from a windfall to the detriment of our seafarers. That has caused some crew members to reconsider whether a job that requires them to be away from their families for prolonged periods is worthwhile at all. It is putting even more pressure on the recovering industry, and driving British sailors to overseas companies and competitors. Retention of existing seafarer professionals is not the only issue: recruitment is becoming a challenge too. One captain has said that without the SED, it is now hard to attract university graduates to embark on a seafaring career.
In conclusion—it does no harm to repeat this—the cruise industry is a UK success story, employing tens of thousands of people and contributing billions to our economy while giving the very best holiday experience to customers. I know that the Minister was as pleased as me to see the resumption of our nation’s fantastic cruise industry, and that he will continue to support it, as he has done throughout the most turbulent time in its history. I hope that he will use his influence with the Chancellor and the Treasury to secure a seafarers earnings deduction waiver, temporarily waiving the requirement to be outside the UK for a period of time in order to qualify. Our seafarers must feel valued for what they do, and receive recompense for the sacrifices they make in the way they would have had the pandemic not happened.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) on having secured this very timely debate. My interest is local, national and international. It is local because of my home town of Greenock, the biggest town in my constituency, with its very long and very proud maritime history. It is the major port for exports in Scotland, and it hosts a growing cruise ship industry. Scotland hosted 817,000 cruise ship passengers in 2019, and Greenock hosted 144,000 of them, the second most in Scotland after Invergordon, with 168,000, and way ahead of Edinburgh, with 139,000. However, we have not finished quite yet: we are expanding the docking facilities in Greenock, and building a new visitor’s centre and a reception building. If I get my way, we will redevelop a local tobacco warehouse and a sugar refinery building to form the beginnings of a culture quarter within walking distance of cruise ship berths. Naturally, we are greedy to generate greater local financial benefits from the cruise industry, but we are prepared to invest to make that happen.
Scotland-wide, we have much to offer, as indicated by the investment in Aberdeen harbour. Around 27 cruise lines operating 67 different vessels will call at Scottish ports as part of a cruise in one year. That contribution is valued and should never be taken for granted. While we continue to exit from covid, and domestic cruising has increased, we must acknowledge that international cruising is hugely important. In years to come, Scotland shall remain a welcome host to all our friends and neighbours from foreign countries, from Sorrento to Southampton.
As the cruise industry continues to grow, it presents us with many opportunities and just as many challenges, but there is an issue that we cannot ignore. All operators of cruise ships need to address the environmental damage that their vessels cause. Disappointingly, the Paris agreement did not address aviation or shipping. I am pleased that the maritime industry will be at COP26 and will set a zero target for emissions for 2050.
Although I understand the cost of transition, I implore the industry to be more ambitious: 2050 is too far away. By 2050, if we do not hit our targets to reduce global warming, my port of Greenock will be underwater. Plans are in place for fuel cells to provide the energy to run the hotel aspect of cruise ships and Governments to have a duty to ensure that the power required to charge the cells while docked comes from clean, green renewable energy.
In conclusion, it is easy to point fingers and blame others but, if we are to continue to enjoy cruising in domestic and international waters, we require a collaborative approach from local ports, cruise ship operators, energy providers and Governments, forged by ambitious environmental targets. That way we can cruise with a clear conscience, safe in the knowledge that we are enjoying the beauty of our planet while protecting it for future generations.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) on the brilliant work he has done in highlighting the massive contribution that the cruise industry makes, particularly to us in Southampton.
As I came in this morning, I was struck by the memory that one of the first debates I led in Westminster Hall was on competition in the cruise industry. It is great to see so many towns and cities from around the country with ports that play their part. Of course, I will always re-emphasise that Southampton is the capital of cruising in the United Kingdom. It is important to reflect that there are many hundreds of jobs in my constituency, even though it has no coastline and does not contain the port, that are reliant on the cruise terminal at ABP.
What we have seen over the past year or so has been really difficult for those employed in the sector and the large companies based in and around the port of Southampton, as well as all the smaller suppliers that have been so reliant on the sector for income over the past decade of massive expansion in the popularity of cruising. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen said, cruises are not just for wealthy pensioners but for all ages and demographics, who really enjoy the opportunities that cruising gives. In my constituency in 2019, 28 different small suppliers with a value of £11.9 million supplied the cruise industry. Last year, their incomes fell dramatically to just £6.9 million. We can understand the devastating impact on the local economy.
About 18 months ago, I remember being quite critical of the difficulties we had in repatriating cruise passengers and getting cruise ships into ports around the globe so that passengers could make it home. However, as the Government’s maritime biennial report indicates, following the repatriation of UK national passengers, Carnival alone repatriated more than 19,000 UK people and 13,000 international crew members last year. That was an enormous effort. The company has been pleased to continue to work with the Government to learn the crucial lessons of covid. The industry has learned to ensure that, should there be a resurgence of this or any other hideous virus, there are new protocols in place, so that we do not see those scenarios again. To bring all those passengers home took a massive financial investment and no small human effort.
It is important to look to the future and not focus on the challenges that there were but at the opportunities ahead. I was pleased to hear Carnival use the word “celebrate”. It is celebrating the reopening of international cruising. It has enjoyed a summer where UK passengers have been able to experience the waters off the British Isles and visit towns and cities on our own islands, but we have to get back to full-scale international cruising.
I am pleased to see the protocols and measures put in place to keep passengers safe. They include pre-departure testing, rigorous cleanliness onboard and encouraging sanitisation and hand washing. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen was right to point out the medical facilities onboard those ships are second to none. In many cases, they have intensive care units that one would expect to see only in hospitals. It is important to emphasise that cruising is now the safest form of transport. It has the potential to start regrowing and to contribute to the UK economy again, which we so desperately need.
I want to re-emphasise the massive changes to the environmental impact that we have seen. On tours of cruise ships docked in Southampton I have seen the efforts that go into minimising consumption, maximising recycling and ensuring that their waste is treated as sustainably as possible. Huge strides have been made not just by the cruise companies but by the port, which has reduced its emissions into the atmosphere of Southampton.
I want to reiterate the economic point that my hon. Friend made. There are questions around the support given to British seafarers, but over the next few months we could see them making an unexpected windfall net contribution to the Treasury. We desperately need mechanisms in place to encourage British seafarers to stay in the industry and new people to arrive. In the local area, I can name some inspirational British female seafarers, working in an industry that is not known for having large numbers of female sea captains. They exist and they do a great job. It is important that they are not driven out of the industry by unexpected additional taxation just because they have not been able to be at sea in international waters for the required number of days. I would like the Minister to consider that point, and I look forward to his undoubted words of wisdom about how bright the future of cruising is for Southampton.
I would like to finish with a “thank you” to the Minister. He is always there for the great events—the happy celebrations, opening new terminals and launching new ships—but over the last year or so he has also been there for the difficult times. I know how hard he and the Department for Transport have worked to ensure that the industry can restart in a safe and sustainable way.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) on securing this debate.
In recent years, the cruise industry has become one of the most important and, occasionally, controversial parts of the visitor economy in the Northern Isles. I suspect we are not the only community around the coastline to find ourselves in that position. The industry has grown over the years, starting with just a few ships and gradually growing to more and bigger ships. As a consequence, we have lacked a strategic approach to the development of that particular part of the visitor economy. It is nobody’s fault, but it is a little like the frog in water that just gets warmer—eventually, we realise that there is a severe impact. A good number of local businesses in Orkney and Shetland are now highly dependent on cruise traffic. There are also a number of self-employed tour guides who have grown an industry that simply was not there before. They have certainly missed cruise traffic; its return will be important.
In all things we should try to find the positive from the negative. The absence of cruise ships since March 2020 and the beginning of their slow return is something that we should take opportunity from. I would like my communities to take a much more strategic approach to engaging with the industry, and, by the same token, I would like to see better engagement from the industry with my communities. In the past, the larger operators would often say “These are our terms of business; people can either take them or leave them. If they do not want them, we will not come to their communities.” I hope that as those operators rebuild and as we rebuild our relationship with them, we may be able to see that done rather differently.
There are real opportunities for some of the most economically fragile communities in the Northern Isles: places such as Fair Isle, which has a population of about 60 people. A small cruise boat coming into dock there can have a tremendous impact and can be a real opportunity. However, again, to get the maximum benefit from a visit from a cruise ship, communities like that will require a bit of support from outside agencies. Local councils, VisitScotland, the local economic development agencies, the Scottish Government and the UK Government should all be pulling together to find a new strategic approach that will allow every community in the country that engages with the industry to do so in a better, more strategic way. That way, the very different needs and opportunities that will go to a place such as Greenock or Southampton are not ones that will operate to the disadvantage of communities such as mine.
There are all sorts of opportunities from the industry, but we have to accept that there is a diversity of opportunities and all need to be accommodated. This is the point at which we can reboot that relationship, and I hope Governments and other public agencies, the industry and communities can all work together to do exactly that.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford, and a great pleasure to contribute to the debate, ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith). I do so as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary maritime and ports group, but also as a Member of Parliament for Thurrock and particularly the port of Tilbury, which is home to the London cruise terminal. I will happily concede to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen that Southampton is, indeed, the capital of cruising. However, by the same circumstance, Thurrock is the ports capital of the UK. It is only natural that cruising forms part of that.
We have heard already this morning about the difficulties faced by the industry during the pandemic and I want to pay tribute to its stoicism when grappling with the issues caused by the pandemic. Dare I say that its behaviour contrasts rather favourably with that of the aviation sector, which has been loud and noisy about the challenges it has faced? Fair enough, but the fact that the cruise industry has not been as vocal about the difficulties that it has faced does not make them any less difficult.
As we have heard, the industry stopped sailing in March 2020. The skyline in Tilbury was transformed, because we were home to seven ships that should have been sailing the high seas but were permanently docked there. That included two ships owned by Saga, one of which had yet to take its maiden voyage. It was a challenging time but we were pleased to host them. However, it is fantastic news that we finally have the cruise sector sailing again and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for his real efforts to achieve that.
I have been in debates about the industry. Only last week, we talked about how the silo culture in Government often means that the sector does not get the support it necessarily deserves. That has been particularly true in this regard. We have had the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Transport all having an influence on whether the industry could sail.
Although the Department for Transport has been an extremely effective and enthusiastic champion of the sector, unfortunately the decision making about whether sailing could take place really rested with the Department of Health and Social Care and the question of whether it was safe. We have already heard that cruising is perhaps the safest method of travel. In fact, we know that the industry has made great investments to make it so, reducing capacity to enable social distancing on ships and so on. The medical facilities are also second to none. Obviously, the Department of Health and Social Care and the chief medical officer have the objective of disease control, and they took a risk-averse approach to whether the sector could get going.
The most difficult thing was the travel advice issued by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which treated our cruise ships not as a mode of travel but as a destination. It was pretty unfair to do so given that, as we have heard, they are a safe method of travel. In terms of the destinations that a cruise ship will visit, the amazing thing about ships is that they are very flexible, and if a destination suddenly becomes red, they can go somewhere else.
At last common sense has prevailed. I hope the Minister and the Department for Transport can reconfigure their relationships with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department of Health and Social Care, so that the situation the sector faced is not repeated. In August 2020, the industry showed the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), the safety measures that were being put in place across the industry, and nobody could have doubted the effort being taken and the safety they would generate. Alas, it took a long time to persuade everyone else, but lessons have been learned.
The difficulties that the sector has faced have led to some cruise companies going, and a number of vessels have been scrapped, but the industry’s optimism is striking and inspirational, given the difficulties it has faced. Just this weekend, the Disney cruise ship left from Tilbury, which was great to see. Lots of children went to wave it off, because it was accompanied by lots of Disney tunes, which was lovely. I am pleased that, at last, the Spirit of Adventure has commenced its maiden voyage and is currently sailing around Scotland.
I am pleased that we have had this opportunity to pay tribute to this fantastic sector, which is much neglected. I hope that we shall continue to celebrate its contributions in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) on securing this debate. I always bring a contribution from a Northern Ireland perspective and I can honestly say, with my hand on my heart, that the cruise sector has an impact on my constituency. I want to explain the importance of it, and how we wish to grow it so that we can all benefit.
To me, like many people, the idea of a cruise after the past number of months seems like a dream. Well, that dream could become a reality under the correct circumstances and if safety measures are in place. The boost that will bring to our local economy will be a welcome shot in the arm for my constituency of Strangford. That is why the Northern Ireland perspective is important.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Before my hon. Friend begins to elaborate on Strangford, as he is wont to do on every occasion—obviously, he is right to do so—does he agree that the boost to Northern Ireland tourism per se from cruise tourism has been tremendous? We have the “Game of Thrones” filming locations, the Titanic, Giant’s Causeway and the walled city of Londonderry, all of which benefit from cruise passengers who arrive either at Belfast port or Foyle port to acquaint themselves with the great sights in Northern Ireland.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will enlarge on that in relation to the constituency of Strangford. He is right to mention the walled city of Londonderry, “Game of Thrones” and other things around Northern Ireland that cruise ships and those who are on them can visit. It has become a growth industry for us—at least, it was before the pandemic. We hope to grow that over the next period of time.
I am pleased, as always, to see the Minister in his place, and I look forward to his response. I also look forward to the shadow Minister’s speech, because he has an interest in this subject matter and in Northern Ireland. I am perhaps coaxing him to come in on that.
To back up the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), between 2016 and 2019 the cruise market in Belfast grew by 136%—a massive increase—bringing in an increasing number of international and first-time visitors to the region. It is becoming a key contributor to the region’s tourism economy. An estimated 275,000 cruise visitors arrived in Belfast harbour in 2019 as part of a Britain and Ireland, or northern European, cruise itinerary, bringing an estimated £15 million into the local economy. We are clearly building on that and see its importance for the economy.
For my constituency of Strangford, those on the cruise to Belfast commonly come down the Ards peninsula. There are two key places that they wish to come to. One is historical: the abbey in Greyabbey, a Cistercian monastery dating back to the early years. The Montgomery family, of the close by Rosemount estate, have a particular interest in it as it used to be part of their estate. It is now run by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, but the Montgomery family keep an interest. There is also Mount Stewart, which is run by the National Trust, and, I believe, has become the jewel in the crown for visits to the constituency of Strangford.
Significant investment has been made to portside facilities in Belfast in recent years. I visited the Belfast Harbour Commissioners’ area before the pandemic along with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and others who had an interest in that. We were impressed, by what the Belfast Harbour Commissioners were prepared to do.
In recent years, they have built on those facilities, including opening the first dedicated cruise facility in Belfast harbour in 2019—again, just before the pandemic. More than £800,000 was invested in upgrading the quayside facility at the new cruise terminal. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners recognised the need to do something in Belfast to build on what they had, so they spent their money on this specifically, enabling larger cruise ships to dock in Belfast.
The upgrade includes a visitor information centre, with £152,000 funding from Tourism NI, representing an important development of the city’s cruise tourism infrastructure—we clearly recognise it in Belfast, and further afield—and using the latest digital and audio-visual technology to showcase Belfast and Northern Ireland’s visitor attractions. The investment yielded results, as Belfast was named the best port of call in the UK and Ireland in Cruise Critic’s 2019 Editors’ Picks Awards—quite an achievement, and, again, we want to build on it—with Northern Ireland leading the way.
The importance of cruising to my constituency of Strangford lies in the fact that there is an easy, fast route to see what was described by the UNESCO world cultural heritage tentative list as
“one of the most spectacular and idiosyncratic gardens of Western Europe and universally renowned for the ‘extraordinary scope of its plant collections and the originality of its features, which give it world-class status’”—
that is, Mount Stewart. I am sure my colleagues in this Chamber are saying to themselves “I’m going to visit Strangford as soon as I can. I’ll make my way there.” I will give them the details shortly, Mr Efford, on how they can enjoy what I pass every day when I am at home. I was at Mount Stewart last Friday with the National Trust. It is probably one of the most beautiful gardens around.
I say that of my constituency unashamedly and proudly, and I look forward to inviting the Minister to visit someday. I am sure that he is itching at the chance—he is probably giving a diary date to his PPS as we speak! To further butter up the area, when he comes to Mount Stewart, he can come down to Greyabbey because it has some of the most fantastic antique shops and coffee shops in the Ards peninsula. He can make a really good visit, spend his money, have his coffee, which is second to none, and visit the antique shops, which also have antiquities and provide historical interest. It is somewhere of some importance, and our abbey has the best example of Anglo-Norman architecture in Ulster.
Those stops are currently on the cruise line itinerary, and, indeed, there were 51 visits in one season. It needs to be pushed more, in my opinion, but that is something that my colleague, Councillor Robert Adair, the deputy mayor of Ards and North Down Borough Council, is working on—drawing more attention to our wonderful area.
Tourism is central to the policy, strategy and planning of Ards and North Down Borough Council, because we see it as the key to a bigger boost for the economy, more jobs and opportunities, and money being spent in the constituency. The policy also moves further afield and goes for the entire United Kingdom. I understand the attraction of a warm Mediterranean sun—we all do—but the beauties of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are incomparable, and I believe a UK-wide strategy of welcoming cruise ships will be beneficial to us all.
We look to the Minister’s response, and I am sure it will encompass the benefits of cruise ships across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I will warn him of the question I want to ask him: what discussions has he had, or could he have, with the Deputy Minister back in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to advance us where we could do it better?
It is no secret in this House that I am a great believer in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, better together. I love my colleagues in the SNP to death, I really do; we have a different point of view on the constitution, but I love going to Scotland for visits as well. I want us to stay together, so the question is how we can do this better together for the benefit of everyone. That is what I would like to see.
I have long questioned the efficiency of Tourism Ireland’s partnership with Tourism NI for the promotion of Northern Ireland ports. I am not convinced that it is doing all it can to make that happen, and perhaps it could do it better. I urge the Minister to consider a UK-wide cruise promotion campaign with Northern Ireland as the central port of interest—no pressure there, Minister.
When people are presented with the option to come to our beautiful shores, enjoy our world-renowned hospitality and cuisine and get a taste of our wonderful, rich history, I believe it will not be turned down by anyone. That is why some of those first-time visitors want to come back. Now is the time to attract those cruise ship visits, build on the ones we have and increase them, and the local economy will be the beneficiary.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you very much for your excellent chairing of this debate, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) for securing the debate.
I think my colleagues from Scotland, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) missed a trick: they did not talk about their UNESCO world heritage sites, nor did they talk about the quality of their coffee, which I am sure is truly wonderful, in Orkney and Shetland and in Inverclyde—as well as in Aberdeen, of course.
I also did not expect that we would be talking about Disney songs, so I will hold myself back from bursting into song. I could not think of an appropriate maritime song to sing, but I am sure my children will correct me later and tell me I have missed one—probably from “Moana” or “The Little Mermaid”.
Rather than focusing on covid, I want to talk and think about pre-covid and post-covid, what the cruise industry will look like and the benefits it will have for our communities. It is undoubtedly a massive success story. Between 2014 and 2019 we saw 90% growth in cruise ship calls and passenger numbers in Scotland. That is a staggering increase, and it shows the increase not only in the popularity of cruise ships, but in the ability of Scottish ports to take those cruise ships in and of Scottish communities to ensure that we provide the best possible services.
In Scotland, the cruise industry supports more than 800 employees and generates around £23 million gross value added for the Scottish economy. It also extends the tourism season in Orkney and Shetland. However, the key thing for me and for the SNP is that sustainable cruise tourism development must be the overarching requirement. I appreciate the different situation that Southampton and even Inverclyde find themselves in, in that they are cruise ports and less destinations—I am sure Inverclyde is a destination and so is Southampton, but they are involved in servicing the industry more than, say, Orkney and Shetland.
We need to ensure that the tourism that we see from cruise ships and cruise passengers benefits those local economies, and that local economies see the plus points of that. We have seen issues around Scotland with things such as the North Coast 500, which is excellent but has brought problems as well as positive benefits to those areas. We must ensure that we strike that balance for local communities.
Cruise ship stays make up 15% of overnight tourism volume in the highlands and islands, but they represent a much lower percentage of the overnight tourism spend there. I understand that that is the nature of cruising; that is how it works. However, we cannot see a race to the bottom between Scottish or British ports trying to allow cruise ships to come as cheaply as possible, without people visiting their local areas. We must see the benefit to those local areas. Although having cruise passengers on an island or in a community in Scotland is a great thing, it can also be unsettling for the residents and that local services are more stretched as a result. We need to make sure that balance is struck.
The harbour in Aberdeen is split between my constituency, Aberdeen North, and Aberdeen South. A new harbour is being built in Aberdeen South that will be able to accommodate 300 metre vessels with a maximum 10.5 metre draught. Before that was being built in my city, I did not know a huge amount about the cruise industry or how it worked for local communities. I continue to be concerned that areas around the new harbour in Aberdeen—among of the more deprived communities in the city—will not gain from the new harbour and cruise ships in the way that I would like them to, given what they have had to give up for it to be built, with the number of road closures and work that has been going on. I would like to see those communities benefit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde mentioned the culture quarter, and we need to support local communities in doing that, to ensure that cruise ship visitors can spend money in the local area. That is what we need to see: the economic benefit coming to those areas as a result.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Lady touches on something very important. The capacity for cruise ship passengers to spend money when in port is very often determined by the terms of the contract that they have with the cruise ship. That is why I say that in rebuilding the industry and looking at the impact it has on different parts of the country, we need that sense of partnership. We need our communities to be talking and to be able to influence the ships, as well as the other way around.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree, and I thought that the right hon. Gentleman’s speech was very thoughtful on that matter. He has really thought about the needs of his community. That is why I stressed that we must not have a race to the bottom. We do not want our ports fighting over who can give the cheapest terms because that will only hurt our communities; it will mean that our communities do not see the benefit. It would be much more positive if they worked together, both as local communities and in a more overarching strategic way, as he said.
It is really unfortunate that we have not had much co-operation between the UK and Scottish Governments on green ports, in particular when we have been clear about the key things that we want: a focus on net zero and a focus on the real living wage. It is completely reasonable to say that people working in and around green ports, cruise ports or any other kind of port should be paid the real living wage. One of the biggest concerns that I hear, in particular on—slightly off topic—oil and gas supply vessels, is that people are not paid appropriately because they are on tickets from other countries and therefore they are paid less.
We need to make sure that we bear down—I do not like that phrase—on that and reduce the number of people not being paid a wage that they can live on. We need to ensure that we have laws and rules to fix that problem in a maritime way, and that the people working in ports are paid the real living wage, not the national living wage. It is such an important industry, and it is one that will continue to grow. We need to make sure that we see the benefits for the people working directly in the industry and for the communities seeing the visits.
People travelling on cruise ships get to visit some of the most inaccessible places across the UK—no offence to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. They get to visit places that cannot be reached by hopping on a bike or a train. It is really important that the people who are travelling on these ships and the cruise companies recognise that these communities are fairly rural and cannot necessarily deal with that influx without support. This is a really positive industry; it is a massive success story, particularly for Scotland and its more rural communities. I would like to see it continue to grow, but we probably need to work more with local communities to ensure that they see its benefits.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
What an astonishing debate we have had today—I thought that we were all going to burst into song at one point. Far from “Under the Sea” from “The Little Mermaid”, from the speeches that we have heard today I was going to suggest that “(Sittin’ On) The Dock of the Bay” by Otis Redding might be appropriate.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. As a Member for a landlocked constituency yourself, let us not forget that you have one of the most historic palaces in the nation, Eltham Palace, one of my favourites—a world-class blend of art deco and medieval, the medieval bit being, obviously, where Henry VIII grew up. I wanted to throw that in there, as Members were talking about their own heritage sites, in particular the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—what a pitch he made for the new chief executive of Tourism Ireland! I will come back to that in a few minutes. I am a Manchester MP, and we are a seagoing city, as Members know. There may be seven locks between us and Liverpool, but I am proud of that heritage and the canal that Daniel Adamson built in the 1880s.
This is a timely debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), who spoke so eloquently and stood up for his port. He even mentioned Portsmouth in his speech—I am never sure which city is the pride of Hampshire.
Mike Kane
As TS Eliot stated—the Minister likes a good quote—
“The journey,
Not the destination matters”.
That is a saying that rings true to those in the cruise industry more than most. The past 18 months have been an ordeal for the industry to say the least, starting with a scramble to get passengers and crew members home, ports closing to our ships and some crew members remaining stuck at sea. I pay tribute to the industry and the workers who found themselves in such extraordinary circumstances.
I am a huge fan of this country—Members may be aware—and its coastline in all its rugged beauty, but I imagine that, for some, that is a hard sell in comparison to the Caribbean, the Mediterranean or the magnificent fjords of Scandinavia. At the end of July, it was really great to hear that cruise ships were again able not only to traverse the seas but to drop anchor and have passengers disembark to sample the sights and sounds of foreign climes. That was a point made eloquently by the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes).
As the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen said, when the cruise industry thrives, it contributes £10 billion to the economy. I find this incredible: every ship that docks in the Solent—the capital of cruising, as has already been pointed out—is worth a staggering £2.7 million to the economy. However, the industry does not just benefit Southampton. The Minister and I were in Liverpool, at Anfield, on Friday night at the Merseyside Maritime Industry Awards, an amazing evening and a fantastic, world-class display of British ingenuity. We saw how the docks are being regenerated through Wirral Waters, the Peel Ports Group, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, and Mersey Maritime. The project is really innovative for the city region in the north-west.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) will know that I have seen huge change over many years—so much so that, when I now visit the islands, I have to get the cruise timetable to make sure that I can get to the Broch of Gurness, Skara Brae, St Magnus Cathedral or Maeshowe. When those coaches turn up, it is almost impossible to get into those sites, which are some of the most historic on our planet. I have also seen the great growth in visitor attractions, new interpretation centres and so on. He is right that the cruise industry needs to co-operate with local authorities to ensure the maximum advantage for islands, highlands, towns and cities when they are visited.
I can tell the hon. Member for Strangford that I will visit Grey Abbey. It is one of the few Cistercian monasteries in our lands that I have not visited, and I am absolutely convinced now that I will get there. In Belfast, Titanic Belfast is an amazing innovative interpretation centre, drawing tens of thousands of visitors and building on the heritage that Northern Ireland has in the cruise industry. I want to make a point for “Game of Thrones” and the port of Derry/Londonderry. We would like to see more cruise ships stopping there in future and exploiting the potential of that fine medieval walled city.
Many jobs in the cruise industry are highly localised. 20% of those employed on cruise ships are based in the UK and the industry is an important source of employment both aboard ship and on shore, and in wider supply chains. However, the industry must be mindful of pay, hours and conditions, particularly of non-UK staff, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) eloquently pointed out in her speech. We should be paying the living wage to all those who dock at and work in our ports. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for her work on the all-party parliamentary maritime and ports group, and join her in paying tribute to the industry, which has worked so hard through the pandemic to get people home, to respond to the changes and to get the industry back up and running.
Another thing we must address within the industry is its environmental impact, which the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) spoke eloquently about. He also pointed out that Greenock is still getting more visitors than Edinburgh—I think there is a little needle going on across the central belt. We know this takes many forms, such as the emission of greenhouse gases and waste from ships, and reducing the resilience of marine ecosystems and damaging marine environments. All shipping generates an impact, but cruise ships have traditionally created waste disproportionately as their thousands of passengers create a waste stream, so I was delighted to see the industry yet again showing initiative to do the right thing as we transition towards greener shipping.
I know the Minister visited the port of Southampton last week and opened the Horizon cruise terminal. This innovation and infrastructure is vital to helping the sector build back greener and reach its targets of reducing carbon emissions by 40% and of carbon-neutral cruising by 2050 across Europe. It cannot do this alone. It is vital that the Government fund innovation and research in the wider maritime sector and cultivate an environment where the cutting-edge green and just transition can happen. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, we must not see a race to the bottom.
The industry has invested almost £17 billion into ships, bringing on board new technologies to reduce emissions and to be more efficient. Cruise ships are increasingly equipped to support shore-side electricity use, and the development of infrastructure in ports, such as we have seen at Horizon and Kirkwall, will be key. We know there is a levelling-up agenda and that coastal communities are among the poorest. We also know maritime can offer well-paid, highly-skilled jobs, as well as true regeneration and transport connectivity, and I call on the Government to make the investment in the sector as we sail out of the troubled waters of the pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. As is often the case when we discuss our wonderful maritime sector, we have had a debate that has been incredibly interesting, inspiring, thought-provoking, amusing, musical, well-informed and above all passionate, and it is an honour to respond to all the hon. and right hon. Members who have made speeches. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) on securing this timely debate. I know this topic is close to his heart; it is to mine too, and I am keen to debate it with other Members today, particularly during Cruise Lines International Association Cruise Week.
As I have got to know the sector, I have been struck by its incredible variety. We have seen this outlined and explained in the speeches today: the majesty of the large cruise ships; the family ships; the small, boutique exploration ships. It is for this reason that the cruise industry is at the heart of the UK’s maritime identity. More than that, we have seen today that it is a part of the human desire to explore. It brings enormous cultural and social benefits to the country and to the people who cruise, but it also brings identity. The phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, with regards to the ever-changing landscape of Southampton, particularly struck me, as we see what this means to his constituency. The value of the sector to the economy is significant and undeniable. Prior to the pandemic, it supported over 82,000 jobs. CLIA estimates that passengers and crew spent £486 million at ports of embarkation and call in 2017. We have heard from hon. Members of the effect that the industry had.
Unlike the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), I am not going to fall into the trap of debating what is the most important cruise destination or port in the UK. There are all manner of beautiful, interesting and amazing places to visit. I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and he did an amazing job in selling his constituency. I am delighted to report that I have been to his constituency and need no persuading of its wonders, but I very much look forward to visiting again as soon as I can. We heard very powerfully from him of the effect that the cruise industry has on Belfast and his constituency.
As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), every cruise passenger who passes through the terminal is an opportunity for coastal communities all over the UK; from Orkney to Thurrock, Manchester to Northern Ireland, Aberdeen to Inverclyde, to Southampton—we have really seen that today. In particular, it provides opportunities that areas that have been disadvantaged can make the most of. I have been struck by some of the comments made today by hon. Members; I am very keen to work together with councils, and with the devolved Administrations, to ensure that every community benefits. As the hon. Member for Strangford says, we are better together, and I am keen to do everything I can to help.
That is why it has been so devastating that the cruise industry has been at a standstill for over a year. I have also seen the very moving and sad sight of the great ships moored offshore; it is a sight that I hope not to see again, but it made an impact on me. The cruise industry was an early victim of the covid-19 pandemic. We all saw the stories of outbreaks on vessels that were splashed across the papers at the beginning of the pandemic. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North pointed out, operators, industry and Government worked very closely together to take action to repatriate over 19,000 UK nationals from vessels around the globe. The UK also facilitated the repatriation of over 13,000 crew members from cruise ships to their home nations, and encouraged other nations to do the same.
The impact of the pandemic on the cruise industry was considerable; we had to find a way forward. My Department brought teams across Whitehall to work together. I emphasise that for a good reason—it really was working together. I pay tribute to the sector; to its stoicism, as was referred to earlier, and to how it put the safety of passengers and crew at the heart of everything it did. I also pay tribute to my team at the Department of Transport, for whom this has been a labour of love. They have worked passionately with the industry to be able restart the sector. That was possible because the industry worked very quickly to produce the comprehensive set of protocols, through the UK Chamber of Shipping, that we have already heard about today. They have been recognised by the International Maritime Organisation as good practice globally. It is a significant achievement for all those involved, and to the industry’s credit that these were produced so quickly, and that they are substantial. Operators submit to an external verification process to achieve hospital-grade infection prevention certification. Indeed, one of the external verification providers that we have heard from as part of the restart process has assured us that in some cases cruise ships have outperformed hospitals. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North is right to point out the extraordinary facilities that exist on some of these ships—I have seen some of them—because there really are hospitals on board. That is quite incredible.
So we have seen a phased return of cruising. I was delighted to see the first domestic cruise setting sail from Southampton in May. The attitude of the sector—this positive, outward-going, constructive, go-getting attitude—has really been shown by the creation of a new domestic market for cruising. Customer appetite has been phenomenal and I am absolutely delighted that passengers have experienced the beauty of the UK’s coastline—all around the UK, as we have heard today—despite the summer weather that we have had, which has perhaps been suboptimal, to say the least.
The Department for Transport led the global travel taskforce, of course, and as part of that I led a ministerial task and finish group for cruise restart, to oversee the measures put in place and to ensure that we could restart and restaff in a safe way. I thank my colleagues from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for their diligent work, and for working together with me in restarting cruise in a safe way. I cannot say how delighted I was that the first international cruise started again in August from Liverpool, where the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and I were the other day. That is a real testament to the extraordinary work that has gone into enhancing the resilience of the sector from Government and industry working together.
Nevertheless, I of course recognise that this long suspension of the industry has had a significant financial impact. We heard that most clearly from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on maritime and ports. She very powerfully explained that the financial impact on the sector has been significant. Again, I pay tribute to the sector’s stoicism. However, the impact has not only been felt on the cruise sector itself but on ports, on the wider supply chains and on local communities, from Southampton to Strangford, and from Manchester through to Thurrock. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) talked about tour guides, which is a very good example of how local small industries really benefit from the cruise industry.
That aspect is particularly important, of course, for my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen. Last week, he and I were both at the unveiling of the fifth cruise terminal at Southampton, the absolutely beautiful new Horizon terminal. It is a state-of-the-art building, equipped with shore power to reduce emissions from cruise ships in port, and it is the result of investment by Associated British Ports with the Government and the Solent local enterprise partnership. That visit was particularly significant for me, because one of the first visits I made after being given this job, within just one or two days, was to Southampton, and almost a year to the day later I revisited the same site and saw that incredible new facility.
Of course, we have heard that there are many other new facilities elsewhere. We have heard from the hon. Members for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) about the investment that is being made in their part of the world, including the £350 million expansion in Aberdeen, which includes space for cruise. That is very welcome.
When we look to the future, such investment encapsulates everything that is best about the sector. It is looking to the future, reaching for new standards and looking for goals that are common across the whole of maritime, as we heard in the debate last week. I saw that for myself when I visited the Iona, which is P&O’s newest and most environmentally friendly ship, in Southampton a couple of months ago. It is an incredibly impressive vessel and really shows how the industry is going the extra mile to make itself more environmentally friendly.
Of course, we have the transport decarbonisation plan. Shore power, as we see at that new fifth cruise terminal in Southampton, is a major part of that, because it reduces emissions, meaning that ships do not have to run their generators in port, which will help communities in areas such as Aberdeen or Southampton, Itchen, and help to ensure a greener and cleaner environment for all. This winter, we will consult on how Government can support wider deployment as we transition to net zero.
Of course, cruise is also a major part of levelling up, which is central to this Government’s agenda, to ensure that we have direct investment from the cruise sector in port towns and cities, creating local jobs and initiatives to improve air quality in those constituencies.
Kirsty Blackman
I am really pleased to hear about the focus on net zero and the amount that the Minister is able to say about what the cruise industry is doing; that is excellent. On the employment issues that have been raised, we are really clear that people should be paid the real living wage, but if he is not willing to go that far, can he at least confirm that he believes people should be paid the national living wage if they are working on cruise ships that are docking in British ports?
Robert Courts
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. We are always interested to see what more we can do to raise standards for those who work in this most wonderful of sectors. Last year, I signed into law the regulation that meant that the majority of those who work in UK waters are paid that minimum wage, which means that the attractiveness of using seafarers from elsewhere is much reduced. However, I will of course continue to look at what else we might be able to do. We want to make sure that the UK is an excellent place to invest in, and to bring more cruise ships, more seafarers, more jobs and more money into this area. We will continue to support the safe resumption of cruise.
I will make one or two other points before I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen to sum up the debate. Making sure that crew changes are managed efficiently and safely is key, and I am pleased to note that cruise companies already implement their own vaccination policies and report very high levels of fully vaccinated passengers, but it is also a matter for seafarers. It has been very difficult to access vaccination for seafarers, because it is complex. We have worked very closely together, and I want to thank the NHS for making clinics available, particularly Solent NHS Trust. That trust has been incredibly impressive, even sending NHS staff onboard to ensure that seafarers are reached, which will clearly have a major impact.
A number of Members have mentioned the seafarers earnings deduction, and I will say a word or two about that. Clearly, the UK has been under extraordinary financial pressure over the past 18 months. A large percentage of UK seafarers are working internationally, and of course being eligible for the seafarers earnings deduction can make an important difference to their financial wellbeing and ability to support families. Unfortunately, the global suspension of the cruise sector has meant that seafarers, through no fault of their own, have been unable to meet or maintain the eligibility requirements for accessing SED. The industry has warned that this will have a significant impact on those seafarers, as all right hon. and hon. Members will realise. My predecessor and I have both engaged extensively with the Treasury on the matter. The effect of it has been difficult to quantify, but I hope that a clearer picture will emerge with the resumption of international cruises. I look forward to working with industry to provide further data to help Government make an informed decision on what further action, if any, they are able to take.
Kirsty Blackman
That is a really important point for a significant number of all of our constituents. The Minister has said that he has had talks and that things may be going forward, but if he will undertake to write to us and let us know what is happening with this issue in future, I would really appreciate it.
Robert Courts
The substantive point of the comment that I made was about the data—in particular, the clearer picture of the impact—and I can certainly write to hon. Members if that would be helpful, so that they can understand what data is required. I can certainly look at that once it is provided.
In summary, I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate. It has been a long and challenging 18 months for cruise, and I cannot express enough times my delight that with co-operation across Government and the industry, this incredibly valuable sector has been able to restart. As we have heard, prior to the pandemic, cruise was one of the fastest-growing sectors of the tourism industry worldwide, and was of huge importance to Britain and the public. As ships sail from our shores again, I want the sector to feel confident that the UK is a great place to do business, and for it to bring more ships and more jobs, and more for our communities all over our United Kingdom.
Royston Smith
Frequently, the interesting thing about these debates is what we learn when we are in them, such as that Fair Isle, with a population of 60, still has cruises—albeit more modest ones—visiting it. I had not thought about that—I am quite focused on Southampton; I do not know if anyone noticed—but these are really great debates for learning new things that we did not already know. I have found it fascinating, particularly the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about his constituency and why it is the most important place for people to visit. Of course, I would argue that that is Southampton, but I am sure that everyone in here, whether they are from Aberdeen North, Thurrock or anywhere else, would argue that their constituency is the place to visit.
I will say a couple of things in conclusion. Looking back a bit, although it is important to look forward, it was perverse that when we started opening up, we opened restaurants, bars and hotels, but not restaurants, bars and hotels on cruise ships. It is one of those industries that just gets on with it and is good at what it does, and therefore is a bit forgotten.
I wanted to have this debate so that we can highlight the importance of cruise and acknowledge that it is a really important industry to the country. We have learned that it is a truly UK-wide business that benefits all of us and our constituents and will continue to do so, but no one really talks about it because it just gets on with it. It was a bit disadvantaged by some of the Government advice.
The Minister, who is remarkably well thought of by the industry, did everything he could to restart cruising, but then of course there was the travel advice from the FCDO, which said that it came from PHE, and before we knew it no one could make a decision. I hope that sort of thing will not happen again. I hope there will be no pandemic, but in the event that that sort of thing happens, I hope this will be looked at properly.
I hope people will now acknowledge how important cruise is, how many cruise operators we have, how many jobs they create, and how much money they put into our economy. I hope the industry is not left to get on with it because it is so successful. That is a two-way street. Members have said that cruise perhaps needs to work more with local communities and to benefit them more. It should never say, “We are a big cruise operation and you can take it or leave it.” I do not feel that it has done that in Southampton, but we need to be alive to that sort of thing.
There are so many cruise operators. I do not want to namecheck them all, but as soon as we start to look, we realise how many there are. Carnival has its group, which includes P&O and Cunard—those are the ones I am particularly familiar with in Southampton—but then there are Fred, Olsen, Saga and smaller ones that we perhaps have not heard of. It is a massive industry and it is really important to the country.
I thank all hon. Members who have come here today to make their points. I am sure that they have been well heard by the industry and by Government. I again extend my gratitude to the Minister, who has been exceptional over the past 12 months. I know the industry would want me to say that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the contribution of the cruise industry to the economy.
Eden North: Benefits for Lancashire
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Before we begin, can I encourage Members to wear masks when not speaking? This is 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.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the economic benefits of Eden North for Lancashire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am delighted to be here today to debate the economic benefits of the proposed Eden Project North in Morecambe, Lancashire, a subject that is very close to my heart and my constituency. Eden Project North will be built right in the centre of Morecambe, on the seafront. It is revolutionary in that respect. To use a famous quote,
“Time and tide wait for no man.”
Indeed, that is the theme of Eden Project North.
Eden has just gone through planning, and millions of pounds have already been spent on the project to bring it to this point. We have just been through the most difficult of times; while none of us have previously faced a pandemic in our lifetimes, there are examples in our recent history of the type of projects that can really change regions, and this is one of them. The project will give back hope and deliver the right sort of growth in an area that really needs it—not just for my constituency, my hometown of Morecambe, but for the wider north-west of England. I am talking about projects that can deliver on the old triple bottom line of being economically, socially and environmentally sound.
We are all painfully aware of the story of coastal community decline from the 1970s to the present day, but we have many fine seaside resorts in Britain. Coastal communities that thrived in the 19th century have been neglected for too long. According to a report by the Select Committee on Regenerating Seaside Towns and Communities, that is a fact. This surely must be the moment for our contribution to the Government’s levelling-up project and the covid recovery.
Investment in deprived areas is required to improve the region’s levels of human and social capital, research and development, and innovation. As I speak, Eden Project North has met another milestone: the submission of its planning application. It has taken millions and millions of pounds of local government spending to get to this point. This is a huge moment for Eden, the result of years of hard work from both the Eden team and its local partners in Lancashire. The investment of time, energy and money that went into preparing it is a real statement of the intent of the Eden Project, but it still needs Government funding to become a reality.
I must thank the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer on the record for giving £100,000 to kick-start the Eden Project in my area three or four years ago. We have Government intent; it is now a case of pushing forward to see where the money will come from. In my opinion, there is no better example of the Government’s levelling-up aspirations than Eden Project North. It has been demonstrated in Cornwall for more than 20 years. Eden Projects provide economic benefits for their communities that far outweigh the investment needed to build them. In Cornwall, from an initial investment of £105 million, Eden has so far contributed more than £2.2 billion to the regional economy. Through its huge and continuing popularity, local sourcing policy has been turbocharging the local economy. This will benefit not only businesses in Morecambe, but businesses in the wider north-west area.
This is testament to the shared prosperity the Eden Projects can bring to a particular region. In Lancashire, we need this jewel in the crown of the north-west to shine. This must not happen by chance; only by being clear from the beginning and investing in regional supply chains will the economic benefit happen and jobs be created, not just at Eden Project North but through many firms across the north-west.
An investment in the Eden Project is an investment in people, too. Twenty years ago, young people in Cornwall felt that they needed to leave the area to get a decent job. Now, they see huge opportunities driven by increased profile and prosperity, as well as better educational provision. Eden works with schools and further and higher education providers to inspire and educate learners of all ages. In Cornwall, they welcome 50,000 schoolchildren a year and offer degree-level courses with local university partners. Eden Project North will have a larger catchment than that, because schools can only transport children in a vehicle for up to two hours. The catchment area in Morecambe would be all the way from the Scottish borders to the midlands and across to the east coast. In Morecambe, the Morecambe bay curriculum has already been established, a bespoke, place-based education and training programme catering to students throughout the education system.
Eden Project North will welcome 1 million visitors a year and inject around £200 million a year into the north-west regional economy, supporting 1,500 quality green-collar jobs across the supply chain. Such jobs are crucial, and the education programmes that provide training for them will be vital for Government to realise their zero-carbon ambitions, and will make the north-west a leading green hub.
Like most coastal communities, Morecambe would be a beacon of regeneration in the Government’s levelling-up agenda. The pandemic has made that need only more acute. A Government investment of £70 million will make Eden Project North viable and ready to open in under three years. The economic and social benefits and impacts would be seen almost immediately. The return on investment will be swift, with economic impact due to surpass the Government’s investment within six months of opening. I know from the research that Eden has done for the planning application that my community is wholeheartedly in support of the project. Now it is time for the Government to put faith in the project, too.
The creation of Eden Project North will be epic, an all-year-round venue that can attract 1 million visitors every year to the north-west. That will have obvious employment benefits and knock-on effects for the region’s visitor economy and supply chains. Eden Project North has been designed to be a catalytic investment that will provide a step change in the economic fortunes of Morecambe and be an important economic asset to the region. That can only contribute and deliver an example of the levelling up of the north-south economic performance. There is a residential catchment of 10.5 million people in the region of the north-west of England where I am from. We are looking for £70 million. Just in that local catchment of the north-west of England, there are 427 schools. The situation will be ongoing for time immemorial, because every child in a school year will visit Eden Project North maybe once or twice a year. Eden Project North will be an asset and beacon for green initiatives and growth. In partnership with Eden, local colleges and universities are already educating for the green-collar jobs in emerging global economies. There is a memorandum of understanding for Morecambe to train future workers for Eden internationally. That is already happening
As I said at the start, time and tide wait for no man. The tides are clearly changing as we try to level up the country. I for one do not want to wait too much longer before we deliver this important project in my home town of Morecambe and for the rest of the north-west of England. Eden Project North has the potential to be the key driver of socio-economic and environmental victory in post-covid recovery for the north of England. Will the Minister confirm which Government funds have been earmarked to enable schemes to drive levelling up? Eden Project North is a true embodiment of the Government’s levelling-up, “build back better” aspirations. It is shovel-ready and can be open by 2024, driving the local economy and acting as a catalyst in the levelling-up agenda.
This is precisely the type of project that is worthy of Government commitment. The Government must be seen to be delivering investment across the north. Levelling up does not mean investing only in Manchester, Liverpool or Leeds. Will the Minister reassure the people of the north-west—specifically Morecambe—that they will not be forgotten? Eden Project North will have a huge positive impact across Lancashire, Cumbria and Yorkshire. It is within easy reach of nearly all the north’s urban centres. We have the quickest route to the coast and seaside from the M6 from anywhere in the country. That is why Eden is coming to Morecambe.
Will the Minister confirm that this is exactly the type of project that the Government wish to support in demonstrating their commitment to levelling up? I am sure the Minister will agree that this would be a unique opportunity to create a collaborative project, to reimagine the British seaside resort for the 21st century and be a model for sustainable coastal community regeneration.
My community, along with Eden, has done its job. Millions have already been spent in trying to level up Morecambe, the jewel in the crown of the north-west. It is now time for the Government to put their money where their mouth is. Give us the investment to build back better. Help us put back the sparkle in the rest of the crown of the north-west of England by helping my community build back better, creating prosperity for future generations with Eden Project North in Morecambe.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I have come here today to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) for the work he has put into the project.
As my hon. Friend articulately set out, the project does not just touch Morecambe and even Lancashire. I am a Greater Manchester Member of Parliament. The vast majority of my constituents will probably think of themselves as Lancastrians, but we will say Greater Manchester for the sake of this argument. My constituency is half to three quarters of an hour away from my right hon. Friend’s constituency and every school in my constituency would visit the project. Vast numbers of my constituents would flock to Morecambe to see this incredible regenerative project—I cannot think of a better word—that is going to transform our area. There are a lot of people in the north-west, but we are interlinked. Cumbria, Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside: we are all in this together. One project that offers the benefits that have been outlined by my hon. Friend benefits us all, educationally, regeneratively and jobs-wise. It is important to say that.
Sometimes, when we are having these debates and individual MPs stand up and make the case for investment in their area, it is important, because we want to bring investment as close as possible. My hon. Friend is correct; he does not just want Manchester and Leeds to be the main centres. I am arguing for Bury, Ramsbottom and other towns in my seat to have investment as part of the levelling-up agenda. However, I think it is important that another MP is here from the region to say that what my hon. Friend is saying is correct. This will be a jewel in the crown of the north-west. It will power regeneration, education and job creation—and not just in Morecambe. It will give opportunity to young children and people in my area who want to have a career working at the Eden Project. There is no chance of that happening at the moment.
I know that the Minister, who is the best of men, will be supportive of this, whatever he says today. However, I want to say that the project will be genuinely transformative. It will make a difference to the whole of the north-west, including my constituency. My constituents would want me to be here to say that this is the absolute epitome of the levelling-up agenda. Everything that that agenda means to all of us is epitomised in this one project. I finish by saying, once again, that my hon. Friend is doing an unbelievable job on behalf of his constituents with this project. I am glad that I am here to say that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Efford, having enjoyed that pleasure on the Building Safety Bill. I have a tickly cough, so if it sounds like I am struggling to get through the speech, it is because I am. Let us hope, for all our sakes, that we make it to the end.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) for securing a debate on this important issue and for the effusive support he has from not even a neighbouring MP, but an MP from a different county. We do not often see that in this place. We can tend to be a bit parochial and territorial in trying to secure money just for our constituency, so it is great to see that the project has the draw that another Member would come and offer his support for the greater good of the north region. Also, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale is an accomplished musician. During the 1980s, he played with Rick Astley and Rick’s song “Never Gonna Give You Up” seems particularly apposite when we think about the commitment that my hon. Friend is showing to the project. It is a credit to the hon. Member and his efforts that Eden Project International has identified Morecambe as a preferred potential site for the development of Eden Project North.
Projects such as the proposal to create an Eden Project North in Morecambe have the potential to have an economic impact that reaches far beyond the town itself and across the whole of Lancashire and the northern powerhouse, as beautifully illustrated in the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly). The Prime Minister set out his commitment to the northern powerhouse at the convention of the north in 2019. He has also set out his blueprint for a green industrial revolution through a 10-point plan to support green jobs and accelerate our path to net zero as part of this Government’s ambition to level up the country. In my role as Minister for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, I am determined to see all parts of the country prosper, including the north.
Since the Eden Project opened in Cornwall in 2001, it has established itself as a major UK visitor attraction, with an estimated 1 million visitors per year. When Eden began to look for a second site for potential development, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale was quick to work with local partners to present Morecambe as a potential site for that development. Their plan showed how Eden Project North could draw on the natural beauty of the area and the unique physical and environmental features of Morecambe bay, reimagining Morecambe as a seaside resort for the 21st century, building on the Government-supported £140 million bay gateway that has improved connectivity to the region.
Eden has worked with local partners, including Lancashire enterprise partnership, Lancashire County Council, Lancaster University and Lancaster City Council, to bring those plans to fruition. I have seen the strength of the local proposals, and Eden continues to develop and engage with Government on ideas for this project. That work resulted in the production of an outline business case that was presented to Government in September 2020. Eden Project North projects that it will receive over 950,000 visitors per year, with over 450 full-time jobs and over 1,000 full-time jobs supported within the supply chain. Other benefits have been outlined, such as working with partners in the north, including the N8 Research Partnership and Net Zero North, to promote clean and sustainable growth. I understand that the site is planned to be an exemplar for the net zero green economy, food production, and associated technologies.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale has a strong commitment from the local population, as they want to see the project become a reality for Morecambe, attracting new visitors and shedding the town’s perhaps slightly old-fashioned image while retaining the best bits of its heritage. The Government have previously been pleased to invest in Morecambe through the coastal communities fund, which since 2012 has invested over £228 million in 359 projects across the UK. We have also provided funding to establish 146 coastal community teams around the English coast, including the Morecambe bay coastal community team, and financial support for the Winter Gardens at Morecambe. Through the £45 million Discover England fund, the Government have supported Lancashire and the north-west through the development of international marketing. That includes Marketing Lancashire’s campaign to encourage visitors from the Nordic countries and investment in VisitBritain’s gateway partnership with Manchester airport to promote tourist destinations in the north-west, including the Lancashire coast.
I know that my hon. Friend has been actively speaking to the Chancellor, and indeed the previous Chancellor; I have seen him in the Lobby, bending the ear of any and every Minister who he thinks might be able to help with his cause. The man is tireless, and it is a pleasure to see him in action, highlighting the project and championing the opportunities it would present for communities and businesses across the whole of Lancashire and the wider north. I have received letters of support from local educational establishments, the Lancashire enterprise partnership and local government partners, reflecting the passion they all feel for this project and the economic and social benefits it would bring.
In last year’s spending review and this year’s Budget, though, the Chancellor advised that his immediate priority was to protect people’s lives and livelihoods as the country continued to battle the coronavirus outbreak, but we now have a comprehensive levelling-up agenda to deliver. The Chancellor has set out how the Government will deliver stronger public services, honouring the promise they made to the British people to provide new hospitals, better schools and safer streets. He announced that there would be investment in infrastructure and a £4 billion levelling-up fund.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale highlighted that an investment of £125 million is required, with a request of £70 million from the Government and £55 million of contributions from the private sector. As he is aware, we are facing a tight spending review, given wider fiscal pressures. We also need to be able to assess fairly the relative merits of this project for levelling up, alongside other propositions in the Lancashire area and across other parts of the country. We have given feedback to Eden colleagues on how the funding package could be restructured to make it suitable for existing funding opportunities, and my officials continue discussions with Eden.
We recognise the potential that the project offers for Morecambe and Lancashire; however, our position remains as discussed with Ministers in July—the project needs to go through a competitive process such as the levelling-up fund or the UK shared prosperity fund. I look forward to continued conversations with my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale and for Bury North on this project, including on how we can deliver on the Prime Minister’s vision and this Government’s commitment to levelling up and securing a vibrant, prosperous north.
Question put and agreed to.
Future of the National Health Service
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, which is 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.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the National Health Service.
Against the backdrop of the deepest health crisis in decades, the Tories have launched a dangerous NHS Bill. The Bill is not an attempt to address the deep failings of the past decade, driven by austerity, cuts, privatisation and the disastrous 2012 reforms that marketised our NHS. It is about entrenching an even greater role for private companies in our NHS.
The new Health and Care Bill should really be called the NHS Americanisation Bill, because it is the latest stage in the corporate takeover of our NHS, one where private companies not only profit from people’s ill health but increasingly get to decide who gets what treatments and when. Those who believe, as we do, in the real principles of our NHS—free treatment, based on need, guaranteed as a right in a comprehensive system—should be deeply alarmed. Others will address their concerns about the Government’s latest plans. Here are just a few of my concerns.
The Bill will not end or reverse privatisation but will open the door to greater private involvement. It is a charter for corruption, with the dodgy allocation of contracts we have seen throughout covid becoming the norm. It will mean even more politically compliant cronies, as it gives the Secretary of State powers to decide the heads of the new local health boards—expect more Dido Hardings, and accountability to local communities to be reduced.
It will introduce strict caps on budgets, which could lead to serious rationing, with services cut to match funding, rather than funding matching health needs. We will have a postcode lottery for treatments. A new payment system would give providers, including private providers, a say in how much they should be paid for contracts won. It has the potential for staff to be paid according to local rates and conditions, creating a race to the bottom with the deregulation of the medical professions, potentially undermining the quality and the safety of care.
These reforms are part of a wider plan. That plan depends first on deliberately underfunding the NHS. Under the previous Labour Government, NHS funding increased by 7% a year; under the Tories, it increased by just 1.2% a year between 2009-10 and 2018-19, and by even less when the growing and ageing population is factored in. Although some new funding is planned through regressive taxes on working people, funding under this Government will still be well below the historic average that is needed. As Matthew Taylor of the NHS Confederation said:
“Extra funding is welcome. But the Government promised to give the NHS whatever it needed to deal with the pandemic, and while it makes a start on tackling backlogs, this announcement unfortunately hasn’t gone nearly far enough. Health and care leaders are now faced with an impossible set of choices about where and how to prioritise care for patients.”
That deliberate underfunding always goes hand in hand with greater privatisation. Waiting lists grow and people start to seek health provision elsewhere. As budgets are cut, that is used as the cover to bring the private sector into the NHS under the false arguments of efficiencies and savings, when the reality is that every pound spent bolstering the private companies is a pound less spent on people’s healthcare. Instead of more privatisation, the public overwhelmingly back the NHS being returned fully to being a public service.
The Bill is being spun as a way to address the huge failings of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which placed markets at the heart of the NHS, but, in reality, it is simply a way to entrench privatisation in a different way. The Bill does not address the deepest failings of the 2012 reforms. For instance, while dropping the absurd competitive tendering process, the new Bill does not make it a requirement that the NHS is the default option for providing healthcare services.
The legal structure for the market remains. The profit-hungry vultures will still be circling and trying to pick a profit from human suffering. Foundation trusts will still be able to make from 49% of their income by treating private patients, and key outsourced services, including those provided by porters and cleaners, will not be brought back in-house.
As well as allowing private companies still to pocket public money, the Government’s plans also give private companies a chance to shape health policy directly. The Bill opens the door for private corporations to sit on the 42 local health boards—the so-called integrated care boards—that will make critical decisions about NHS spending. In a sign of what might be to come across the country, Virgin Care already has such a seat in Somerset. The Government are under political pressure on the issue, as we know, so we have seen some limited concessions, but they are not enough. The real solution must be that private companies have no role at all on these boards or in the running of our national health service.
The Bill also allows NHS local boards to award contracts to private healthcare providers with even less transparency than they do now. Contracts will be exempted from the public contracts regulations, which opens the door to yet more dodgy handouts to the Tories’ corporate mates, something that has become all too common during the pandemic—and the public know it.
What we have seen with test and trace over the past year is what the Tories want to do with the whole of our NHS. But this stealth privatisation does not end with test and trace. An unbelievable £100 billion has gone to non-NHS providers of healthcare over the last decade alone. Earlier this year, 500,000 patients had their GP services passed over to a US health insurance company, Centene, which is one of the biggest companies in the United States. Its UK subsidiary, Operose Health, now runs 58 GP practices and is thought to be the largest private supplier of GP services in the UK. It is no coincidence that Operose Health’s former chief executive officer, Samantha Jones, was appointed as an adviser to the Prime Minister. An adviser on what? An adviser on NHS transformation. Nothing to see here, of course.
The public have not consented to any of this. In fact, the Government have gone to great lengths to ensure that the public are not even aware that the process is happening, because a new poll by EveryDoctor showed that just one in four people know that up to 11% of the NHS budget goes to private companies.
Finally, when we consider the future of our NHS, we must tackle its staffing crisis. There are many tens of thousands of vacancies, including nearly 40,000 nursing vacancies alone. Yet NHS staff are set to get just a 3% pay increase this year, with most or even all of that increase being eroded by inflation. That will not only fail to tackle the shortages; it is a kick in the teeth, after everything—everything—that our NHS heroes have done over the past 18 months and after a decade of real-terms pay cuts. Nurses’ pay has fallen by around 12% since 2010, so the 15% pay increase that nurses are demanding would address that fall, even if it will not make up for the thousands of pounds in lost pay over the past decade. NHS staff have been balloted and they reject the current pay offer. I wish to place on the record that NHS staff have my full support in their campaign for 15%.
To conclude, instead of addressing the immediate crisis of 5 million people—and rising—on waiting lists, or the tens of thousands of staff vacancies, we are getting yet another top-down reorganisation, the aim of which is to accelerate the stealth Americanisation of our national health service. Of course, the Tories deny that their latest Bill is about privatisation and Americanisation, but I would argue that their response to the pandemic reveals their real ambitions.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Members will be aware that there will be a Division very shortly and the debate will be suspended. I would like to call winding-up speeches by 3.28 pm and I appeal to Members to speak for around five minutes.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). He made a powerful speech, true to his beliefs and values, and he made some powerful points.
It reminded me of my more radical background when it comes to politics, especially in terms of health. I remember attending—not participating in—a demonstration and march in 2011 in Chorlton, shortly after the new Government came in. It was a reasonably left-leaning march and there were a few Soviet Union flags with the hammer and sickle. One of the most powerful contributions was from a trade union rep, who said, “We don’t need change. We don’t need innovation in the National Health Service. The only change you ever needed in the NHS was in 1948 when it was created. We don’t need any change from then.” That was the spirit, and it is the view that too many people have.
The NHS ought to be changing all the time, in different ways, to keep up with the way people work, and with technology and culture. There are so many ways in which the national health service ought to be changing all the time. We need legislation, led by my hon. Friend the Minister, to make sure that we keep up with changes in society. People would be outraged if we had not moved on culturally from 1948.
What does that lead to? Fundamentally, we ought to be focusing on the importance of patients’ values and needs, to make sure that they are at the centre of the national health service. It is not fundamentally about NHS structures, although those are incredibly important, or about maintaining structures as they are forever, but about ensuring that those structures reflect the needs of the national health service so that it is as effective as possible.
We hear discussions and talk about globalisation, which we know is a reality. Many parts of globalisation are a threat, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Leeds East, who talked about the threats and concerns. However, there are also significant opportunities. We want better access to drugs and medicines, especially innovative drugs and the latest drugs. If we look at figures from the European Medicines Agency about the adoption of drugs, we see that England is behind Germany, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland and Italy. We ought to be at the forefront of the adoption of new drugs and new ways to look after people’s lives.
What do we need to understand when we are thinking about this, especially when we consider treatments and support for people with rare conditions? The UK is often not big enough to provide the innovation for these new treatments, so we need international collaborations. The national health service and other UK bodies need to work with countries around the world, but there is a place for corporations, whether in America, Japan or other places.
We need to ensure that our research and development effort collaborates and works with countries around the world. That cannot be on a Government-to-Government or Government agency-to-Government agency basis only. It has to be right through the system. If we do not have that approach where we need clinical trials at scale to support people or to find new treatments for people with rare diseases, it will not happen. We need to participate in international trials as well.
I would expect these things and I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will articulate that they give more potential to the national health service, because we need more engagement. At the moment, the national health service does not function in the way that many people around the country believe it ought to function. It ought to be far more engaged in clinical trials. Talking to many people from the sector, my sense is that that is down to individual leadership in particular trusts.
Too many trusts do not lead and participate in innovation or the adoption of new drugs, once they have been approved. The system is too slow and it often takes far too long, so patients and patient groups know that their trust or clinical commissioning group does not have the life-enhancing or even life-saving treatment that is available. We need that reform of the system to ensure that it looks after the patients.
There is another aspect that needs changing, which is the way that the NHS is funded or operates. I have a strong sense that it is relatively straightforward for the NHS to adopt a new drug. However, it is far more challenging for the NHS to adopt a new medical device because of the up-front costs and the training needs at the beginning. It is more difficult to adopt a device than it is a drug, and we need to have parity in that. We need the NHS to have the ability to adopt these devices and adapt to them.
That naturally leads on to what devices do. A key part of devices is the generation of data. Data is important for understanding the performance and ability of new treatments to make a difference to people’s lives. The NHS does not operate, to any extent, as a system that works and engages properly and fully with data systems. We need reform of the NHS to do that.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Order. I hope the hon. Member will wind up his comments shortly.
Chris Green
I will. The integrated care systems ought to be part of this, with local leadership, and hopefully strong accountability, to ensure that leaders in those areas can drive that engagement with medical research technology charities, corporations, institutes and universities, to ensure that the NHS is innovative, adopts new technologies and ensures that patients have the best they can. That is a huge amount of reform, and it must start now.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Ms Bardell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for opening the debate with so many facts that we need to reflect on. From before our first breath, to our very last, since 5 July 1948, the NHS has worked day and night to give us hope.
The principle was that, no matter who we were—duke or dustman, as Bevan said—we knew that, when the hands of the NHS reached out to us, it neither judged nor differentiated. It simply did everything it could to invest in our health. That equality was the way out of health inequality, which is, sadly, so stark today in constituencies like mine, where the most affluent can expect to live for 10 years more than the poorest.
Reading Michael Marmot’s report, there is something fundamentally missing from the NHS. This reorganisation will not address it. We must sew that into housing, air pollution, jobs—the things that really will bring about a fundamental change.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady mid-flow.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Before I call the hon. Member for York Central again, I advise Members that the new end time for the debate will be 4.15 pm, and that I would like to call Ministers by 3.45 pm.
Rachael Maskell
Unless and until public health is the Government’s first priority, the demands will be ever-growing, but now, unlike before, it is uncertain whether those demands will be met. Just look at covid-19: the countries that put public health first had the lowest sickness and mortality rates, yet over 135,000 lives have been lost here. Whether it is covid or cancer, poverty is the greatest enemy of health, yet as we speak, the surge in poverty that this Government are imposing on our constituents through the changes they are bringing about—whether through national insurance contributions, or by taking away the £20 universal credit uplift and other benefits—is resulting in poorer mental and physical health. After a decade of austerity, poor workforce planning and a continued drive to profit off the sick have taken their toll on our NHS. In 2019-20, according to the King’s Fund, £9.7 billion was spent on private provision, up by £500 million on the previous year. According to the data provider Tussell, £37.9 billion-worth of covid contracts have been let.
The economic and health shock of covid should prompt us to hit the pause button on the NHS. Last Friday, I spent half a day with York Medical Group, with clinicians, managers, GP partners and support staff; I was there to listen. This Friday, I will be at York Hospital, which is also struggling. The GP practice has received 41,000 calls from a population of 44,000 patients on their books in a month; add to that the 5.6 million, rising to a possible 13 million, waiting for treatment in secondary care. The system is imploding, the staff are imploding, and the NHS is imploding. We cannot just keep feeding money into the NHS, and we cannot keep selling it off.
When I read the subject of the debate—“the future of the NHS”—I did not consider the Health and Care Bill to be that, nor did the staff who I met with. In fact, they see the Bill as a massive distraction from dealing with the current crisis that they are having to grapple with, and another assault is just one step too many. Staff are saying that to save their own mental and physical health, they are now having to walk. We therefore have a workforce crisis on top of a health crisis, and the NHS is now in a clinically dangerous place. Government Ministers who completely misunderstand how the NHS works cannot just keep interfering in the system. They need to pause. They misunderstand the professionalism, care, dedication and love of the people who give all that they have—day in, day out—to care for us. As Ministers introduce more complex systems and more private companies into the health service, the NHS itself is falling apart. The Health and Care Bill is not the solution; it cannot be the way forward.
On the integration of the health service and social care, if we do not put the money together, we cannot put the systems together. However, the reforms will create more barriers and more division, rather than solving the challenges before us. The World Health Organisation describes health as
“a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”
A future NHS must start here. Public health has been so underfunded over the last 10 years, and even under-utilised during the pandemic. It is absolutely vital that it is at the forefront of the future NHS. Regular population screening will start addressing severe health inequalities. Health counselling will ensure that people make the right choices about their future and will divert people who do not access the health service when they need it into early intervention and prevention. If we invest in clinicians in the community to undertake that dialogue and those discussions, and if we invest in social prescribing and other ways of improving people’s lifestyles, we have a real chance to turn this system around.
We cannot delay putting together an integrated public health agenda to drive forward our health service. If we continue as we are, our NHS will not be here. The pressures bearing down now are just indescribable. After listening to staff, all I can say is that the Health and Care Bill is just not the solution.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this important debate. I know that 83 of my own constituents signed the petition, and many more have emailed me expressing concerns about the Government’s Health and Care Bill. I concur with those concerns.
Over the last 18 months, billions have been wasted on failed track and trace systems and failed personal protective equipment contracts that have been awarded to mates down the pub, while our amazing NHS workers have not received the pay rise that they deserve. Of course, we want to see greater collaboration between health and social care services, especially on the back of the ongoing pandemic and the lessons that we have drawn from it. No longer can health and social care services work in silos. We saw how social care, particularly residential care, played second fiddle to the NHS in the early part of the pandemic. That is superbly illustrated by the Channel 4 drama “Help”, based in my city of Liverpool. However, I am resolute that the Health and Care Bill must be paused, as too many questions remain unanswered. I will try to outline some of those questions.
We can expect integrated care boards to spring into life in the new year. They will, certainly in a governance sense, vary from area to area. While having a place-based strategy that is responsive to local health needs and inequalities is welcome, we cannot be subject to a postcode lottery, with the influence of private providers greater in some areas because they have been awarded places on the boards and others have not. Nothing in the draft legislation prohibits such a conflict of interest, nor is it clear anywhere that the NHS is the preferred provider for medical and clinical services. The potential for interference from the Secretary of State for Health is a major cause for concern when it comes to awarding contracts, particularly given the Government’s own support for privatisation.
On the integration of health and social care services, I remain a sceptic, even if the intentions are sound. I fear that there is a real risk that adult social care will be the poor relation to a resource-hungry NHS, especially with a huge elective care backlog. That is the only conclusion we can draw from the Prime Minister’s announcement of extra spending on health services and the non-plan for social care. Out of £36 billion, £5.4 billion over three years to be put aside for social care is not enough and will not make an tangible difference for local authorities, as the primary commissioners of adult services.
Locally pooled NHS and local government adult care budgets—if that is to be the direction of travel—could well enhance the provision of adult social services, but equally the reverse could be true. That is why, through integrated care partnerships, the importance of place and locality is emphasised as part of every established integrated care board. Accountability must float sideways, down and up. It is essential that integrated care boards must be held accountable by ICPs and vice versa, right through to smaller partnerships working at local level. Local government needs to be front and centre of the development of any integration strategy, as the custodians of adult social care.
The draft legislation should mandate ICBs to develop comprehensive workforce strategies in their localities. Labour councils in my own north-west region, alongside Unison North West, are already engaged in such work, but are coming up against an unforgiving social care market, with too many providers refusing—yes, refusing—money to increase the wages of their staff. Many of the Labour amendments and others will significantly improve the Bill and answer many of the questions I have raised. Sadly, I suspect the Government will not give them a fair hearing.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this important debate, especially at the moment.
In essence, the NHS is about people. It is about its workforce. There can be as many hospitals and clinics as we want, but without any staff in them, they will not make anyone’s health any better. I am painfully aware that after covid, so many of the people who work in the NHS are—I think the medical term is—knackered. They are completely and utterly exhausted. I know of dermatologists and pathologists who ended up helping out in intensive care units in addition to doing their ordinary day job. They were doing hours and hours every week and have got to the end of the year and are completely and utterly exhausted.
There is a phenomenal backlog; we all know about the numbers of people on waiting lists. That is partly because lots of people did not to present to their doctors because they did not want to bother them or were frightened of getting covid. There are lots of terrible stories of people who are presenting very late, particularly with cancers. I had a stage 3B melanoma, and I am painfully aware that if I had left it a few more months, I might not be here today. At the time, I was given a 40% chance of living a year. I know what it is like for all those families who feel desperate that someone has been delaying, and then get terrible news. It is also a phenomenal additional cost to the NHS if somebody presents later, because the surgery and the treatment will be far more complicated.
There are all the cancelled operations for elective surgeries that are not necessarily life threatening but life enhancing, such as knees and hips. When I was first elected in 2001, we still had the waiting list hangover from the previous Government, with people waiting five years for a new hip or knee. That is where we are now. That leads me to a real concern that the Government, with their new healthcare levy, are frankly putting the cart before the horse. If we do not have the people to deliver, throwing money at the NHS will not make the blindest bit of difference to health outcomes.
In the UK, we have roughly three doctors per thousand head of population. The rest of the EU, including countries that have many, many fewer than us, have 4.2. We are 1,939 consultant radiologists short. That is one of the things that will make a difference to whether people with late-stage cancer live or die. In oncology, 189 more clinical oncologists are needed in the UK now, and that is without considering the increase required to deal with the backlog, as well as the new presentations. We have roughly 650 consultant dermatologists in the country; we need roughly another 200. Skin cancer is one of the fastest-growing areas of cancer death in the UK. Only 3% of diagnostic laboratories in the UK are fully staffed at the moment. That means delays in getting results, in particular from histopathology, to doctors to be able to start the necessary treatment.
I have some quick-fix answers, and I hope the Minister will implement all 11 of them. First, reward staying on in the profession, because lots of people are retiring early. Secondly, reward coming back into the profession, because getting more retirees back in would really help with the workforce problem.
Thirdly, sort the gender pay gap. That is one of the problems that is making it much more difficult for lots of women to stay in the profession.
Think about providing sabbaticals to people. Sometimes burnout can be prevented just by allowing somebody to have a three-month or six-month sabbatical, knowing they will come back in.
Sort out the pension problem. I know the Government think they have done that, but it is still an issue and is why lots of people are not carrying on.
We have to deal with the fact that overtime is now paid less than it was five years ago. Lots of people are saying, “I don’t really want to do an extra clinic on a Saturday morning or a Sunday afternoon.”
We have to deal with pay erosion—a point that was made earlier. If we keep on not paying doctors enough in the NHS, in the end they will choose to go to Australia, Canada or New Zealand.
We have to sort out the issue of private sector capacity sucking far too many consultants out of their NHS work, day in, day out. That simply means that people, including in very poor constituencies such as mine, will say, “You know what? I’m going to find the £5,000, £6,000 or £7,000 to have that hip or knee operation for my Auntie Val, because it is about the quality of her life.”
We have to train more people. I do not know why we are still lagging behind what we know we need. We should have more places for training, and we should be encouraging other disciplines, such as pathology, dermatology, emergency care and so on.
We have to sort out the immigration factors, which play into all this and mean that so many doctors who have worked here for some time are going back to the countries they were born in because they do not feel that they have a place here in the UK. Finally, please stop putting the workforce last in deciding what we do about the NHS. We cannot run an NHS permanently at 95% or 98% capacity, because then when there is a crisis, such as the one we have had over the past two years, the whole thing is—and this is a technical term—buggered.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this important and extremely timely debate.
The NHS is under great strain. Nurses I met over the summer told me how over-stretched the service is, not just because of covid but because of staff shortages, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke so eloquently about. In June, there were almost 94,000 full-time equivalent vacancies in the NHS, and then of course we have the backlog of patients waiting for hospital treatment in England, which is getting worse. In July, 5.6 million people were waiting. Sadly, that is not just because of the impact of covid; the upward trend was in progress before the pandemic. In February 2020, there were about 4.4 million people waiting for hospital treatment, up from 3.7 million in February 2017.
Yet instead of addressing those extremely serious issues, the Government are pressing ahead with a major reorganisation of the NHS in the form of the Health and Care Bill, through which they will establish statutory integrated care boards and statutory integrated care partnerships, thus breaking the NHS up into 42 local integrated care systems. Each will set out which services to prioritise and which to reduce in their area, embedding a postcode lottery into the NHS in England. It is clear that that variation in the offer, depending on where people live, coupled with strict local financial limits, would lead to increased rationing of healthcare. If that is allowed to happen, I am concerned that people will have to wait longer for care or go without. That is contrary to the founding principles of the NHS.
It is important that we understand just how fortunate we are to have the NHS and why we must defend it. Looking across to America makes very clear our good fortune. Over there, typical costs for health treatment, as advertised by insurance companies looking for business, are as follows. People can expect to pay anything between $400 and $1,200 for an ambulance; between $9,000 and $17,000 for a baby to be delivered; and between $7,000 and $10,000 to have surgery for a broken wrist. Typical annual insurance costs for an individual are around $1,440 and for families around $5,700. That covers only part of the cost because, in America, employers pay the bulk of insurance costs for the individual, with all the cost that that adds to the business communities. Clearly, we do not want an American-style insurance-based system here.
As it stands, the Government’s Bill would put big business at the heart of our NHS. The Government have indicated that they would ensure that individuals with significant interests in private healthcare are prevented from sitting on ICBs, but that is simply not good enough. Private companies should have absolutely no say in how public money should be spent in the NHS. There should be no place whatsoever for private companies on ICBs or integrated care partnerships.
The Government intend to revoke the national tariff and replace it with an NHS payment scheme, with NHS England consulting with ICBs, NHS and independent sector providers. There are real concerns that this will give big business the opportunity to undercut NHS providers. We will see healthcare that should be provided by the NHS increasingly being delivered by big business, with all the implications that that has for patients, for all those working in the service, “Agenda for Change”, and the future of national collective bargaining.
The Government’s reforms would also create a power to deregulate NHS professions, and would have serious implications for the quality of care as well as the employment status, pay, terms and conditions of workers in the service. The NHS is our finest social institution and it has served us well since 1948 but now its future is in peril.
During the campaign against the Conservative-Lib Dem privatisation Bill, which became the Health and Social Care Act 2012, a man told me of his experience of life before the NHS. When he was about eight years old, his baby brother was seriously ill. Everyone in the street was worried for the child. One of the neighbours called for the doctor but, on hearing that, the mother said to the boy, “Run up the street and tell the doctor he is fine and there is no need to call.” The boy ran to the doctor, who had just turned into their street, and sent him away, just as his mother had told him to. Shortly after, the baby died, as the mother knew he would. She had told him to send the doctor away because she knew she could not afford to pay him.
We cannot begin to know the agony that that woman went through. The man who told the story had carried the burden of that action with him through life. That was life and death before the foundation of the NHS, when that family and countless others could not afford medical treatment. It is sobering to think that, after 73 years, the Government’s Bill undermines the principles of the NHS as a comprehensive and universal service.
History will not be kind to those who support such changes. I believe we all have a responsibility to protect the NHS and fight for it as a universal, comprehensive, public service for this generation and those to come. I ask Government Members to reflect on the importance of the decisions that they face in the coming weeks and months, and I urge them to consider the needs of their constituents and oppose the Health and Care Bill.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak and listen in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for setting the scene and all those who have made contributions. Every one of us is definitely agreed on one thing: the importance of the NHS, what it does and what it has done over time. If we needed further reinforcement of that, what we have seen in the past year has told us. In my family, I lost my mother-in-law to covid, so I do understand. During those difficult times for families, health service workers are there, masked up and doing their best to try to preserve life.
As my party’s health spokesperson, I must emphasise the importance of the NHS and highlight the issues of concern for my constituents, to ensure that the future of the NHS is maintained and provides hope to those who currently feel that it is not being maintained in the way that it should. It is a devolved matter, as the Minister knows. During the 18 months of the pandemic, we might have taken our NHS for granted in a way. We did not take the staff for granted; that is not the point I am making. The point is, the NHS was there, we depended on it and it was important to have it in place to help out. I put my thanks on record to all those healthcare workers across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I know we clapped the NHS staff. I live out in the countryside but, believe it or not, I could hear the clapping starting three miles up the road. I could hear the clapping in the midnight air from people in the village of Greyabbey down the road. People were out in numbers creating that crescendo of noise. We need to galvanise public compassion and our sense of community and wartime spirit to restore to the NHS the pride we have. I look to the Minister to do that.
This is a debate about the NHS, but the Northern Ireland protocol is preventing 910 medicines from getting into Northern Ireland. That will have an impact on the NHS. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but would he convey to the relevant Minister the importance of our having medications that are available in the rest of the United Kingdom? They are available on the mainland, but we cannot get them in Northern Ireland. It is terribly frustrating, and a further 2,400 medicines may be at risk. It is an important issue, and it is an NHS issue. It needs to be on record.
I feel that the prioritisation of treatments and services are at the forefront of the future of the NHS. Too many people are awaiting cancer treatment. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is here. His story is a personal one. I remember speaking to him in the Chamber. I did not quite know what was happening, but I had not seen him for a while, and I did notice that there was a scar on the back of his head.
Jim Shannon
Well, I noticed it after the surgery. Our NHS saved our honourable Friend’s life. It is good to hear his personal story as well.
Health reconfiguration is crucial to ensure that our NHS is held to its highest standard. By the same token, these changes must be assessed to ensure that they benefit the future of the NHS. We want the correct funding. I hope that the Minister will reaffirm that he will encourage the Secretary of State to undertake discussions with his counterparts in the devolved institutions to weigh up how this will impact on other parts of the United Kingdom. People are waiting for life-saving cancer treatment, and people are waiting years for a consultation. Unfortunately, some of my constituents waited and did not get the surgery. They did not get their diagnosis early on and some of them are not here today. That is the reality of the waiting times that we all worry about.
The King’s Fund states that
“even under the most optimistic circumstances outlined in the NHS Five Year Forward View, an additional eight billion a year in funding was to be needed by 2020.”
We are already a year behind. If we want to protect and maintain our NHS, we must ensure that the correct funds are in place to secure its future in the United Kingdom. I urge the Minister to listen to NHS workers and focus on what they are telling us. The Minister needs to protect their jobs and livelihoods and the NHS.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Bardell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this important debate. The NHS is undoubtedly the pride and joy of British society. Very few could argue against the claim that it is our nation’s greatest creation. That is why we should thank the thousands of NHS staff who put their lives on the line throughout the pandemic at every chance we have. It is also the reason why I support in full all 11 recommendations from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Our NHS staff have for some time now been overworked, understaffed, under-appreciated and severely underpaid. Over the past 18 months, that has been exaggerated almost to breaking point.
From a dangerous shortage of ventilators and personal protective equipment and general issues of overcrowding, it is clear that the NHS was bled dry long before the pandemic began. At a time when the nation relied on the NHS so heavily, we began to see the true effects of a gruelling combination of Conservative austerity and privatisation. After the sham of track and trace and all those private contracts through the pandemic,
I would have thought it was even clearer that privatisation of the NHS was wrong in any form and that a Government who care about the success of our NHS would halt any further attempts at privatisation, but it is strikingly obvious that it is not the case for this Government.
It is clear that this Government continue deliberately to mislead the public, because every time we discuss the issue, they make claims that the NHS is not being privatised in any way. However, during the pandemic, the Government allowed the sell-off by stealth of 49 GP surgeries to the US healthcare insurance giant, Centene. Twenty of those surgeries are in south London and they include three Streatham GPs: the Edith Cavell surgery, the Streatham High practice and the Streatham Place surgery.
Centene is a company that is bigger than Pepsi and Disney, and almost as big as Boeing. The UK arm of Centene, Operose Health, has stated openly that its market strategy is to exit NHS contracts that do not make a profit, revealing its worrying intent for our GPs. I fear the impact it will have on my constituents and others across the country who have had their local surgeries taken over by this profit-hungry health insurance giant, which has been taken to court for poorly treated patients in the US.
Our taxes should be going into the essential services that we all rely on for our health, not lining the pockets of wealthy shareholders and filling the coffers of profit-greedy American corporations. My concerns about the takeover and the threat it poses to our NHS are definitely not misplaced, because guess who No. 10 recently hired as a health adviser? None other than the outgoing chief executive of Operose Health. It is no wonder we are seeing disastrous legislation, such as the Health and Care Bill, coming from this Government. It is a harsh reminder that life and health are just products to be turned into sales for the Tories.
I am proud to have joined campaigners to raise awareness about these damaging changes on a local and national scale, and I echo their calls, as well as those made by other Members during the debate, that attempts to privatise our NHS must end with immediate effect. Furthermore, the Government must address a decade’s-worth of NHS mistreatment in the autumn spending review, so I would like to hear more from the Minister about exactly how the Government will do that.
The Government must commit to proper investment in the NHS and the 15% pay increase for our hard-working NHS staff, because that is exactly what they deserve. I end with NHS staff because they are what makes the NHS. Clapping and empty rhetoric are not enough. We need meaningful action from this Government if we are going to secure the future of our NHS as publicly owned and free at the point of use.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Bardell. I commend the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on a remarkably important debate, not just in terms of timing, but in everything the four nations have gone through in the past 18 months, which has underlined for all of us how crucial the NHS is. It is there at our time of need and it is there in our time of crisis as well. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the NHS and its staff. Members from all parties must prioritise and defend the NHS and ensure that those staff have our support moving forward, just as they supported us in our time of crisis.
The hon. Member for Leeds East spoke eloquently about the dangers of privatisation creeping into the NHS and about accountability reducing for local patients. He used the phrase that I used to hear as a union rep in the NHS and which created great fear: the NHS was no longer the preferred provider. That is extremely important because, as other Members have said, it means corporations can bid for NHS services and contracts and cherry-pick the most cost-effective ones, leaving the most complex and vulnerable patients to the NHS and placing it under even greater strain. I thank him for setting that out as the crux of today’s debate.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) thanked all of our NHS staff and heard the clapping for them and those on the frontline during the pandemic. He also made an excellent point about the fact that available medications in Northern Ireland are sometimes not equal to those available on the mainland. That is not what should be at the heart of the NHS system; it should be about equality of access, and I would be pleased if the Minister responded to that point about Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) spoke about the impact of covid-19, and, once again, about privatisation. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke about how equality of service at the point of access is not just about treating illness; it is about wellbeing and dealing with life’s inequalities and day-to-day inequalities in our system and our country as a whole. She spoke about the backlog in the system due to covid-19 and how this has led not just to a staffing and workforce crisis, but to many people who need urgent treatment perhaps falling through the gaps. We must plug those gaps urgently for anyone who may be affected.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who always speaks eloquently about brain injury, did not mention acquired brain injuries today. I must confess that my husband has suffered a brain injury, so I am always grateful to the hon. Member for bringing it to the fore. It is often overlooked, and is one aspect of the NHS that we must seek to fund. It is also much wider than that; it is part of our armed forces covenant and affects our veterans and those in criminal justice services. The hon. Member gave very practical solutions today, which I think is always helpful, on staffing retention and recruitment. Those are the very practical aspects of care and treatment that the Minister will have to grapple with and take forward. I thank him once again for that today.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) spoke about the potential for interference in contracts due to the Secretary of State’s additional powers. Given some of the decisions made during covid, and some of the funding that was perhaps not best utilised, I think that is something that concerns us all across the House. We must focus on that, to ensure that the NHS provides good value for money, and that there is not any interference with the making of clinical best-practice decisions.
The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) spoke about a postcode lottery in NHS England, and really set it out with her example of life and death before our NHS and what that meant for most people across the United Kingdom. We should never lose sight of that, because that is the crux of why our NHS is so important, so special, and why we must protect it with everything that we have.
The hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) spoke about rare conditions and the importance of international trials and collaborations, which is an extremely important point. Yes, we must protect our NHS, but we must also incorporate innovation, in a safe way, into our NHS structures, to ensure that our patients have the best treatments possible, and a choice in the types of treatment that they believe would be effective for them. We must, of course, undertake drug trials and, particularly for rare conditions, those must involve international collaborations. Otherwise, we would not have enough participants in the United Kingdom alone.
It has been an excellent debate. In the few minutes that I have left, I will say that the NHS is about health and clinical care, but it is also about mental health. It is important that we come out of this pandemic knowing that it is about wellbeing—it is a wellbeing recovery, and we must focus very much on mental health. I therefore hope that the Government will bring forward an announcement on the new mental health spokesperson in the near future. That is something that should be prioritised. I am sorry that it has not happened before now.
I would also like to mention a bit about what is happening in Scotland. The Scottish Government will increase NHS frontline spending by at least 20% to support the recovery and renew Scotland’s NHS. That builds on the Scottish Budget of 2021, which took the total health portfolio spend to £16 billion, in an increase of more than £800 million. The Scottish Government have also developed the NHS Pharmacy First Scotland scheme, placing local pharmacies at the heart of frontline provision. I went to visit Abbeygreen, a local pharmacy in my constituency, which is doing a lot of excellent work on the frontline, protecting resources for GP services and ensuring that people can access medications extremely rapidly.
I am always keen that we support best practice across the four nations and I do not think the NHS should be a political football. When I worked there, we always dreaded changes because they meant more admin and sometimes did not change the service but just gave more work to those who were already stretched. I would like to see things such as Pharmacy First, which is working extremely well in Scotland, being something that the Minister might consider and discuss with colleagues there. There are best practice examples right across the United Kingdom that we can all seek to replicate, which is extremely important.
NHS Scotland staff remain the best paid anywhere in the UK and this year “Agenda for Change” staff, including nurseries, ancillary administration and allied health professionals, received a 2.95% pay rise as part of a three-year pay deal offering a minimum 9% pay increase for more staff and more than 27% for some still moving up their pay scale. That was in excess of a 2.8% uplift. The Scottish Government are also seeking to abolish NHS dentistry charges, eye examination costs and non-residential social care charges for those in need of support. There is great progress being made.
I think everyone has come to the debate with the real value of the NHS in their heart and in their speeches. Collaborating, working together and sharing best practice right across the board, and making sure we protect our NHS, that the NHS is the preferred provider in the future and that we seek to protect it from private contracts, is going to be extremely important in supporting the staff who have given their all. We need to do that and we need to work together and collaborate to do that. I know that people across the House want to champion the NHS into the future. I look forward to the responses from the shadow Minister and the Minister.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is such a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship today, Ms Bardell. I want to declare an interest: I am proudly an NHS doctor and have been for 16 years.
It is an absolute pleasure to wind up today for the Opposition. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this hugely important debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions and suggestions. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) reminded us of the inequalities that are already deeply rooted in our society, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) spoke movingly about residential care. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke about the value of our NHS staff, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) reminded us in no uncertain terms how life looks without the NHS. My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) spoke of the privatisation by stealth that she already sees in her community and the detrimental impact that it will have.
There is no institution that unites us quite like our NHS, and it represents the very best of our values: collective, compassionate and co-operative. Our health service was once the envy of the world and laid the blueprint for publicly run, universally free healthcare for the modern age. The outbreak of coronavirus reinforced the need not only for a universal health service, but for health services to be properly funded and fully resourced. I am in no doubt that we lost more lives than we needed to because of the drastic and protracted underfunding of our NHS over the last decade. The pandemic reminds us of the risks of Conservative underfunding and undervaluing of our NHS, leaving it ill-prepared to handle winter, let alone a global pandemic.
Despite our unwavering pride in our NHS, it has suffered a decade of decline under consecutive Conservative Governments, and we have already lived through a botched reorganisation in 2012, which was supposed to cut down bureaucracy and deliver better care for patients. Instead, the Lansley reforms had the opposite effect, by complicating processes and increasing the reliance on private providers. The reforms introduced market elements, putting shareholders and companies ahead of patients. Shame! The changes meant that services went out to tender to anyone, resulting in private companies competing against public ones to deliver care at a local level. Those changes completely fragmented our health service, creating a route for private companies to make a profit on community services.
The damage of that reorganisation is still being felt profoundly today. Waiting lists are skyrocketing and people are finding themselves stuck in A&E. Routine operations are being cancelled and cancer waiting times are not being met. Operations are being postponed at an alarming rate, and the backlog in mental healthcare is reaching an all-time high. We are letting down a whole generation of young people, who are so reliant on timely access to mental healthcare services.
Like my medical colleagues across the country, I have been in A&E to comfort young people with eating disorders, who are stuck there because there are no appropriate beds for them. They feel that they cannot trust anyone, because they continue to be passed from pillar to post. I have been with families who hope that their elderly relatives get discharged so that they can spend their final days at home. What must it feel like for a family who are waiting for the person they love to be discharged, just so that person can die with dignity at home and in the arms of those they love? Because of fundamental flaws in social care, however, they find that they cannot be reunited with and cared for by the ones they love. Shame!
We have seen a rise in the use of more expensive agency staff throughout the last 10 years, while nurses, doctors and porters have had their pay squeezed. During this decade of decline, we have also had the first doctors’ strike in the history of the NHS, with junior doctors forced to take industrial action because of contract disputes. The Government expect doctors to work longer for less. The last thing that we frontline NHS staff want to do is to strike. We want to be serving our patients but, sadly, the Government have given us no choice but to know that the best thing that we can do for our patients is to demand better pay and working conditions.
Our NHS staff have worked incredibly hard throughout the pandemic. Through each lockdown, each wave and each new variant, NHS staff have kept going, putting themselves at risk in order to keep us safe. The personal sacrifice is astounding, and we know that so many have paid the ultimate price with their lives. Staff are exhausted, burnt out and in desperate need of respite, and yet they are not receiving sufficient support from the Government. Throughout the pandemic, I have had medics, nurses and colleagues from all around the country messaging me in the middle of the night, unable to sleep from the stress that they have been put under and the amount of death that they experienced in such a short period of time. They were not trained for such conditions.
As hon. Members have said, it is no wonder that around a third of NHS staff stated in the most recent survey that they were considering leaving their jobs. With vacancies already high throughout the healthcare service, losing more staff would be absolutely catastrophic and would definitely impact on patient care. Healthcare staff need to feel valued and appreciated by the Government, but despite the sacrifices they have made and continue to make, their only rewards so far have been empty claps and a real-terms pay cut. If the Government truly appreciated the efforts of NHS staff, they would offer those staff a fair pay rise. The Government might also consider taking up my offer to work with them on a cross-party basis to address the mental health crisis among NHS and care staff. There is nothing I would like more than to work with the Government to deliver what our frontline NHS and care workers need.
On the subject of pay, fair pay is not simply a moral imperative; it is about the future functioning of our NHS. The NHS is one of the single largest employers in the world, but it is in the midst of a workforce crisis. By refusing to offer a fair pay rise, the Government risk causing workers to leave the health service. That would create more vacancies, further shortfalls of staff during shifts and increased workload for the staff who remain. We know that 56% of NHS staff already work unpaid additional hours, and that percentage will only increase if the workforce becomes even more stretched. It is a cycle that will lead only to further burnout among staff and eventually to more staff looking to leave. The Government have known for years that further action must be taken to recruit, retain and train more staff, yet nothing is being done at a fast enough pace to ensure that future demand will be kept up with.
Despite the mishandling of the NHS since 2010, it seems the Conservatives have not learned their lessons, because they are forcing through another reorganisation. The Health and Care Bill, like the Lansley reforms before it, fails to grasp the real challenges facing the NHS. It will only serve to create more problems, rather than solutions, and it will put our entire health service at risk. It does nothing to stifle the market forces present in NHS services, meaning that we will have more private companies running vital community services. A modern NHS has to take a whole-society approach, working closely with local authorities and other public services to reduce the inequalities that drive poor health. A joined-up approach would better serve communities, but the new Bill fails to outline how such an approach would be achieved, and that will result in more fragmented services and worse outcomes for patients. Instead of adopting such an approach, the Conservatives are more interested in consolidating power and guaranteeing private providers a voice in how local services are run.
As we look ahead to the future of the NHS, it is important that we never forget the principles on which it was founded: free at the point of delivery, publicly funded and publicly run, universally available and based on clinical need, not the ability to pay. The Conservatives, who voted against the creation of the NHS 22 times, have been working hard ever since to slowly erode the collective foundations on which it was built. We cannot let that happen. We must never, ever lose sight of the founding principles of the NHS, and we must never let the market control healthcare in this country.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell; I think that I do so for the first time.
Although I suspect that it is fair to say that the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and I are not fellow travellers in the same direction on many things politically, I congratulate him on securing this debate on a very important subject. Although his speech was long on opinion and perhaps short on fact, I do not think that anyone could doubt the passion or the sincerity with which he spoke, whether one agrees with everything he says or not. I pay tribute to him in that respect.
I think it is clear to everyone in this Chamber, as I hope it will be to people watching on Parliament TV and those who read the transcript of our debate, the genuine affection and respect that every Member of this House has for our NHS and those who work in it. It is right that I join the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), and others—I often do so on these occasions, because this cannot be said too often—in paying tribute to those who work in our NHS, including the shadow Minister herself. On the occasions when she and I see each other across the Dispatch Box, I always try to make that point.
A number of key themes have emerged today. The legislation is currently in Committee, and I know that a number of Opposition Members have argued that it should be paused or even scrapped. I have to say that the former chief executive of the NHS, Lord Stevens, said that about 85% of the Bill is exactly what the NHS asked for, wanted and wanted done now—ideally, the NHS wanted it done two years ago, before the pandemic.
In the evidence sessions of our Bill Committee, which continues to meet, we heard NHS Providers, the NHS Confederation and the Local Government Association all saying, “This is the right Bill at the right time.” I should acknowledge that some of those witnesses said there were certain elements that they would question or challenge, but they said it was the right time to pass this legislation. In fact, in a joint statement the NHS Confederation, NHS Providers and the LGA said,
“we believe that the direction of travel set by the bill is the right one.”
At the heart of this legislation is the principle of integration underpinned by evolution. Colleagues across the House who have served with me since 2015 will know that I am not by nature revolutionary, so the legislation is evolutionary in what it seeks to achieve, but it seeks to achieve greater integration. I think it was the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) who spoke about accountability needing to be upwards, downwards and sideways. With these proposals we seek to do exactly that: to achieve greater integration at a local level within the NHS and, at the ICP level, to achieve greater integration with local authorities.
Margaret Greenwood
What would the Minister say to the British Medical Association council, which passed a resolution overwhelmingly
“calling for the Health and Care Bill to be rejected, arguing that it is the wrong time to be reorganising the NHS, fails to address chronic workforce shortages or to protect the NHS from further outsourcing and encroachment of large corporate companies in healthcare, and significantly dilutes public accountability”?
Edward Argar
I will turn to those key points in a moment, but first I will address the specifics. The point I made to the Chair of the BMA council in Committee was that, if I recall rightly, every single piece of legislation on the NHS, including the National Health Service Act 1946 that brought it into place, has been opposed by the BMA. I challenged him to tell me which pieces of legislation the BMA had supported, and he said he would write to us. I have yet to get that letter; I am sure, knowing Dr Chaand Nagpaul as I do, that he will write to us, but in the Committee he was unable to say which piece of legislation—including Labour legislation in 1999, 2001, 2003 and 2006—the BMA had supported.
Edward Argar
I will make a little bit of progress, because I want to address the hon. Lady’s allegations about privatisation and workforce. If we have time at the end, I will of course seek to let her come back in.
On allegations or suggestions of furthering privatisation, I know it is tempting for some, even when they know better—and they do—to claim that this is the beginning of the end for public provision. It is not, and Opposition Members know it. There have always been key elements of the NHS that have involved private providers, voluntary sector providers and so on.
What is instructive is the extent to which that was accelerated when the Labour party were in power. The shadow Minister talked about the 2012 legislation and any qualified provider, but that was not brought in by the 2012 legislation; it was brought in by the Gordon Brown Government in 2009-10 under the term “any willing provider”. The name was changed, but nothing substantive changed from what the Labour Government had introduced in terms of the ability to compete for contracts.
The other point I would make is that one of the key changes allowing private sector organisations to compete for and run frontline health services came in 2004, under the Labour Government, when the tendering for provision of out-of-hours services by private companies was allowed.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
So often—not only from Conservative Ministers, but from hon. Members generally—we hear about things that Labour did in the past. I remind the Minister that the Conservatives have been in power since 2010. We are telling him what we think the issues are with the NHS, and we do not want to hear about what Labour or the ghosts of Labour Prime Ministers past did. We want to know what the Conservative Government, who have been in power for 11 years now, are going to do to improve our NHS.
Edward Argar
I appreciate why Opposition Members might not want to hear what Labour Governments did in the past, given the extent to which they massively accelerated the privatisation of our NHS. To address the hon. Lady’s point directly, we do believe that there is a role for private providers, the independent sector, voluntary organisations and others in providing healthcare services in this country.
Workforce is an issue that a number of colleagues have rightly raised. I am afraid I cannot say to the hon. Member for Tooting and others that, among other things, I am taking on responsibility for mental health in my new portfolio. However, following the departure of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) to the Treasury, as of about three days ago, I will be assuming responsibility for workforce alongside the other responsibilities in my portfolio. I look forward to working with her and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who I believe is the shadow Minister, as well as meeting with Opposition Members who take a close interest.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke with typical wisdom on that matter and made a number of very powerful points. At the risk of a negative impact on my career prospects—although the reshuffle has just happened, so hopefully I can get away with it now—I agree with a lot of what he said. He highlighted that, were it not for a prompt diagnosis, he would not be here. For what it is worth, I think I speak for everyone in the Chamber—if not on all points, then certainly on this one—when I say we are all extremely pleased that he is still with us. He is a man of great integrity and strong beliefs, and I look forward to working with him. We meet on a number of things. I am happy to meet with him to talk about his suggestions and how they might factor in to how we move forward, in the spirit of bipartisan and constructive discussion.
Edward Argar
With the meeting or the job, or both? A number of hon. Members have raised “Agenda for Change” and pay and conditions. I hope I can reassure them, as I sought to do with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). It is not our intention that integrated care boards depart from “Agenda for Change”. The Bill is drafted in such a way as to seek to replicate what is currently there. On Second Reading, I offered to have a meeting with her. I would be very happy to have that meeting, if she gets in touch.
On funding, this Government have passed legislation increasing NHS funding by £33.9 billion by 2023-24 and put £2 billion into elective recovery. In addition, the Prime Minister announced a massive cash injection into our NHS a couple of weeks ago.
I want to give the hon. Member for Leeds East a little time at the end, so I will just make a couple of quick points. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) is right: we are always happy to learn from our Scottish friends. In response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), that is a matter of medicine supply which I discuss regularly with the Northern Ireland Health Minister, and it is absolutely vital that we seek a resolution. I believe that the previous approach by Lord Frost is the right one to find a sustainable way forward.
Dr Cameron
On sharing best practice, I meant to mention that artificial intelligence technology is being used by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and has reduced the heart failure diagnostic waiting times from 12 months to six weeks. I know that Lord Bethell will be visiting to find out more about that. I wanted to highlight it to the Minister today, because I think that technology can support NHS staff workload as we move forward.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady has rightly highlighted the benefits of technology, while my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) highlighted the need for us to continue to move with the times and seize those initiatives. I fear that my noble friend Lord Bethell will not be visiting, as he left the Government at the end of last week. However, I have received a very kind invitation from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) to come and see how the NHS in Scotland is innovating and driving change. I look forward to taking her up on that invitation as soon as I can.
Chris Green
Just as medical devices and drugs innovate change over time, does the Minister agree that the place where the NHS operates and works must also change? Whether those are local surgeries or hospitals, they have to move with the times. In that context, would he also turn his mind to any needs that Bolton Royal Hospital may have in terms of new hospital infrastructure?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend makes a fair point about the need for us to create the conditions—the physical spaces with the technology—in which the workforce, which is the heart of our NHS, can work. He makes a subtle—or not so subtle—plea for his own local hospital. He will not be surprised that I will not comment on the detail of that.
To finish my response to the hon. Member for Strangford, the Command Paper recognises the challenges posed by the current arrangements in the Northern Ireland protocol around the supply of medicines and other goods, for example. The approach that the hon. Member set out, of removing medicines and medical devices from the orbit of the protocol, is reasonable. I hope that discussions between the European Commission and Lord Frost are productive, and that a consensus can be reached on the way forward.
I have to take issue slightly with the hon. Members who raised the role of Sam Jones, one of the Prime Minister’s advisers. They focused on one particular aspect—that for a brief period she worked for an independent provider. What they did not do, which is extremely unfair to a dedicated public servant, is highlight that she worked for NHS England, running new care models; that she has been an NHS paediatric and general nurse; that she was the chief executive of Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust; that she was the chief executive of West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust; and that she was the Health Service Journal chief executive of the year for 2014 and was highly commended for her work in driving forward patient safety. I gently say that it ill behoves Members of the House to attack public servants, who cannot answer for themselves in this Chamber, with partial references to their careers rather than recognising that they have contributed a huge amount in the past.
The hon. Member for York Central was absolutely right to highlight health inequalities as one of the greatest challenges—not the only challenge—that we face as a society and as a health system. The measures on integration and change in the Bill will help us tackle those health inequalities. I suspect that on Report and Third Reading she may test and challenge me on those assertions and assumptions, but she is absolutely right to highlight the centrality of health inequalities.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) spoke about residential care and the link to social care. While I am not the social care Minister, everything that I do in my role as Health Minister must have an eye to social care. I was a cabinet member for adult social care in the dim and distant past, when I had rather more hair, and I also sat on the primary care trust, as it then was, at that time. I recognise the need for those two parts of the system to work together to achieve the best outcomes for our constituents. She makes a valid and important point.
I found what the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) said about the US experience of great interest and instructive, but it is utterly divorced from what the Bill and the Government are doing in respect of our NHS. It was an interesting reflection on what is going on in America, but it certainly does not bear any resemblance to what is happening or will happen in this country.
Margaret Greenwood
Does the Minister not recognise that, where we have a postcode lottery and the increased rationing of care—my constituents are very aware of the rationing of care, and a number of Members have spoken about what happens when people cannot get the treatment that they need on the NHS—there is the spectre of an individual, private insurance-based system? Members of his own party have in fact argued for such a system. People need to be mindful of just how dangerous for us all it would be to introduce a private insurance-based system.
Edward Argar
Will the hon. Lady forgive me? I was not questioning the integrity of what she said, but I was suggesting that there was no risk of that system as she described it developing in this country.
I will sum up, because I want to give the hon. Member for Leeds East a little more than two minutes, if I can. We are determined to continue supporting our NHS; this Bill, this legislation, the funding announcements we have made and the reforms we are putting in place do just that. We want to create an NHS that is fit for the future, renewing the gift left to us by previous generations, building on that gift and strengthening our NHS as it evolves to meet the challenges of the future. We remain the party of our NHS; we will give it the support it needs—as we always have done.
Richard Burgon
Thank you for presiding over this debate, Ms Bardell, and thank you to all hon. Members for taking part. I do agree with the Minister on one thing: he said that we should not omit public servants’ past records from our discussion, so it was very remiss of me not to mention—as I always do—the Minister’s career as a Serco spin doctor before he became a Member of Parliament. He is, in fact, an expert on public money going to failed private companies—which is what we have been warning against.
Colleagues have made some excellent speeches. In particular, I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for all the detailed work that she has been doing on this issue. She vividly outlined the reality of the eye-watering costs for medical assistance in the United States of America. We do not want, in any way, to go towards the US healthcare model, where they feel for a wallet before they feel for a pulse. That is what motivates Opposition Members.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) had a progressive past—it is a pity that he does not have a progressive present or future. In his recollections of the demonstration that he attended in 2011, he falls foul of unfairly characterising NHS staff by saying that they were conservatives with a small c, wanting to keep things frozen in time. However, when we listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and others, talking about the real dedication of NHS staff, we hear that they want things to work and want the best possible outcomes for patients. Before my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) became a Member of Parliament, she had an honourable history working for the NHS and representing its staff; she talked about the dedication, care and love that people give, day in, day out. That is the reality of NHS staff.
I welcome the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), in which he said that the NHS was about people. That is, indeed, what it is about. It has got to be about people, not about profits or profiteering companies. He made some very important points about the dangers of delayed diagnosis and treatment. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for raising the issue of Centene and its UK subsidiary. I thank the Front-Bench spokespeople, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who is prolific and, to his credit, seems to speak in every debate, for talking about the passing of his mother-in-law due to covid, and his recollections of the great service that the NHS staff gave at an incredibly difficult time.
I want to end by reading five facts that we should be mindful of. First, £100 billion has gone to non-NHS healthcare providers over the last decade. In 2019-20, the NHS spent £9.7 billion on private services, an increase of 14% on 2014-2015. Earlier this year, half a million patients had their GP service transferred into the hands of Centene, the US health insurance giant. Five point six million people are waiting to start routine NHS hospital treatment—the highest number since records began in August 2007. Since the NHS was established, the average budget rise has been 3.7%, but between 2010 and 2019, on this Government’s watch, budgets rose by less than half of that—1.4% when adjusted for inflation. That is the reality that our NHS faces. The future of our NHS cannot be governed by the direction set by this Government, but the alternative as laid out by the Opposition.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Licensing of Master Locksmiths
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking. That is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I ask those leaving the debate to leave quietly. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the licensing of master locksmiths.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I am pleased to see the Minister for Security in his place to respond. I will cover the following points: the role of the locksmith, the current situation and its impact, and the dangers of maintaining the status quo. I will suggest a better alternative.
To start with the role of the locksmith, locksmiths practise one of our most ancient trades, with a history spanning hundreds of years. The Master Locksmiths Association is in my Rugby constituency. On a recent visit there, I was able to see a whole room—almost a mini museum—devoted to the profession. I saw examples of locks dating back to ancient Egypt. There were locks from different eras and I was able to understand the evolution of locks, lock-making and locksmiths’ tools over the centuries.
The Master Locksmiths Association, the largest trade association for locksmiths, is a not-for-profit organisation, established to promote skills and ethics within the industry. It is recognised as the authoritative body for locksmithing by the police, the Home Office, the British Standards Institution and the Building Research Establishment, among others. I am pleased to support the association today, as it seeks regulation of its industry and, importantly, a harder line on the small number of locksmiths who take advantage of consumers.
I contend that the spiralling number of rogue tradespeople operating across the country is putting the safety of members of the public—our constituents—at risk.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that often a rogue locksmith will get a job by submitting a very low estimate? When the job is under way, they will claim that they have found some extra work that needs doing, and they put the price up. The poor customer often gets a shoddy job at a high price.
Mark Pawsey
My right hon. Friend draws attention to an important point. Very often the work done by a rogue locksmith is shoddy and needs to be corrected by a member of the Master Locksmiths Association. I will deal with that in my remarks.
For as long as people have held personal property there has been a risk that it would be stolen. We therefore rely heavily on locksmiths for the security of our home and, most importantly, our families who live in our home. It will come as a surprise to many Members, given that importance, that there is no regulatory regime for locksmiths in the UK. Absolutely anyone can advertise, trade, buy locksmiths’ tools and call themselves a locksmith, without training, going through any vetting process or providing proof that they are qualified.
There are consequences for householders, to which my right hon. Friend has just drawn attention. Employing a locksmith is often a distress purchase. It is a decision made to employ somebody in the heat of the moment. The person employed will often be somebody who has been found through a quick online Google search. In those circumstances, a private individual could be placing their security with someone who may not only be incompetent but will not have had to pass any criminal record checks.
The current framework for the private security industry is set out in the Private Security Industry Act 2001. Although locksmiths were excluded from that legislation at the time, the then Government noted that it could be amended to include locksmiths at a later date, although that is yet to happen. During the passage of that legislation in 2001, the then Under-Secretary at the Home Office, Lord Bassam of Brighton, stated that locksmiths would not be included in the legislation for a number of reasons, one of which was that there was
“no evident high level of criminality”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 January 2001; Vol. 621, c. 596.]
I am afraid that is no longer the case, and I will refer to some recent research in a moment.
There is currently a voluntary scheme provided by the Master Locksmiths Association, but there is absolutely no obligation on locksmiths to register with it. The MLA’s approved licensing scheme means that only a proportion of locksmiths are vetted and regularly inspected and have passed an exam to prove their competence.
I have had discussions with the MLA about how we might improve that. We propose an industry-led scheme, similar to the Gas Safe Register for gas plumbers, which is operated by a division of Capita plc. Such a register would ensure that all locksmiths are vetted, inspected and competent to trade, in the same way as gas fitters are registered under the Gas Safe Register, which is the only official gas registration body of gas businesses and engineers in the UK. By law, all businesses involved in the gas sector must be on the Gas Safe Register. A gas engineer can be aligned to a registered business and be issued a licence to undertake work only if they hold a valid and current qualification. The evidence of competence relates to gas safety and is obtained by every engineer through a recognised route of training. We envisage a similar model to the Gas Safe Register for locksmiths, to regulate their industry. Significantly, there is no cost to the Government and the taxpayer from the Gas Safe Register. We envisage the same route for locksmiths.
Let me say in support of the need for regulation that the Master Locksmiths Association hears on a near daily basis from consumers across the country who have unknowingly employed an unaccredited locksmith. Some may have been severely overcharged, in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) described. Some may have received a very poor standard of work, often requiring remedial work from an MLA member. In the most extreme cases, rogue locksmiths retain keys to locks they have installed and either use them or pass them on to others to commit burglaries at a later date.
The MLA recently published research based on feedback from more than 100 of its members from across England, which shows a soaring number of cases of householders falling victim to a bogus locksmith. Over the past year, two thirds of the MLA’s largest members have been called to such a job. Collectively, they have attended more than 300 botched jobs involving a rogue locksmith, and 65% of respondents said that rogues are overcharging customers by £200 or more.
The issue has received widespread interest in the national media. It featured recently as the lead story on BBC 1’s “Rip Off Britain”, which presented stories of people falling victim to bogus locksmiths. All of that emphasises the need for regulation to protect the public and our constituents.
The Neighbourhood Watch network recently surveyed its members and found that 76% of respondents were unaware that locksmiths are not regulated. On being told that the industry is not regulated, 27% described themselves as very shocked and considered that the matter needed urgent attention; 46% said it made them think twice about who they would call if they had an issue with their locks; and 15% said it would make them feel very uncomfortable if they had to call out a locksmith. Eighty per cent. of respondents to that survey believe that locksmiths should be regulated in the same way as gas installers.
This is a problem not just for the UK. Google recently banned all ads for locksmiths from appearing in search results in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden. Google says that
“most if not all ads appearing in search results are from unreliable or even crooked locksmiths who take advantage of those in need—someone who is locked out of the house at night, for example—to charge exorbitant prices for shoddy workmanship.”
That is the nature of the concern, and it is a very poor situation for consumers and our constituents.
I have mentioned that locksmiths are often employed in emergency circumstances. The customer will often be under distress and liable to unwittingly employ a locksmith who is in a position to overcharge and take advantage in the way that my right hon. Friend has drawn attention to. It is not hard to imagine the scene that many people face—for example, when their car has been broken into, perhaps late at night. They need to get home, but the lock on the car has been tampered with. The majority will google “locksmith” on their phones and contact the first person who comes up on an online search, not realising that some, or perhaps many, of the people on the list would not meet the standards set by the Master Locksmiths Association. It is not unreasonable for us all to expect a reputable locksmith to appear in such searches, but that is not the case.
My right hon. Friend said that rogue locksmiths often carry out work to a poor standard, which can have serious consequences—for example, in the case of a house fire. If a single-exit dwelling has poorly fitted locks that cannot be opened easily from the inside of the house without a key, it could have fatal consequences.
If we leave things as they are and simply carry on maintaining the status quo without any licensing scheme, there is a real risk that we allow rogue locksmiths to continue to proliferate. We know that the situation is increasingly hard for consumers, particularly where they find the locksmith through online advertising, which often gives false confidence to a customer. Without a licensing system, online advertisers are unable to determine whether a locksmith seeking to advertise on their site or platform is a reputable trader.
As with the Gas Safe Register, an effective scheme in the UK would make it illegal to trade as an unlicensed locksmith and illegal to employ the services of an unlicensed locksmith. As I have mentioned, applicants would need to be vetted to obtain a licence. They would need to establish proof of competence and be subject to a regular inspection regime on the work they carry out. With that security, consumers would be able to access a public register and have confidence that the locksmith they are employing will perform the job to a high standard and at a reasonable cost.
There is a precedent nearby. Ireland made it a requirement for all locksmiths to be registered with the Private Security Authority as long ago as February 2017. It is now an offence to operate as an unlicensed locksmith and to employ an unlicensed locksmith. Unlicensed locksmiths, and those employing them, face up to 12 months in prison and a fine of up to €4,000. In serious cases, prison sentences can run for up to five years. In the United States of America, 15 states require locksmiths to be licensed, and a variety of local schemes are in place, with requirements ranging from simple registration with a local authority to needing training, background checks and proof of insurance.
The Minister will know that I submitted a question a little while ago calling for regulation of the industry, and he will appreciate that this debate highlights why regulation is needed. I very much hope that he or his colleagues will be able to meet the Master Locksmiths Association to consider the matter further. I urge the Government to consider amending the Private Security Industry Act 2001 or introducing new legislation to protect our constituents and consumers by requiring all locksmiths to be licensed.
The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Bardell. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby—and Bulkington—(Mark Pawsey) on securing this debate. I thank him for his thoughtful contribution. He is a well-known, assiduous champion for his constituents and for organisations in his constituency, and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these important matters.
I recognise the important service that the locksmith industry provides—it is often a distress purchase in difficult circumstances, as my hon. Friend said. There is clearly a need for such services to be delivered to a high standard for the purposes of safety, security and peace of mind. I also recognise the risk posed when the standards for delivery of these services are left unchecked. It is important that the public can access quality workmanship by trained and qualified professionals.
The Government are focused on driving down crime in all its guises, including neighbourhood crimes such as burglary. We are taking concerted action to make our streets, neighbourhoods and communities safer, including by backing the police with more officers, powers and resources.
Locksmiths were excluded from the Private Security Industry Act 2001 as there was no evident high level of criminality in that sector, and there were a significant number of small businesses in the sector. The Government were conscious of how a regulatory burden may place a barrier in the way of expanding and developing those small businesses. Those points remain relevant to the locksmith industry today.
I hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) says about increasing levels of criminality since the passage of the 2001 Act, but much of the argument focuses on poor workmanship. As my right hon. Friend touched on in his intervention, rogue locksmiths overcharge for substandard services. The Government have not seen evidence of unlicensed locksmiths contributing to the incidence of neighbourhood crime, such as burglary.
It is important that the Government do not increase regulation and the burden on businesses unless there is an absolutely compelling case. In this case, the Master Locksmiths Association already has a robust accreditation scheme in place to ensure that approved locksmiths are appropriately vetted, inspected and qualified. The scheme is approved by the police crime prevention initiative, Secured by Design, which sets the industry gold standard for security products and interventions to design out crime.
Consumers have the choice in who they seek to undertake locksmith work. We encourage them to use the information available to them, including that which can be found on the Master Locksmiths Association website, to ensure they receive quality work at fair rates. I would encourage members of the public to utilise the association’s advice, and locksmiths to make use of the scheme, too.
There is a robust consumer protection framework in place that all traders, including locksmiths, must comply with. Consumers are protected from being misled about the products or services they purchase by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The regulations also outlaw behaviour that falls short of the requirements of professional due diligence, carrying criminal penalties enforced by local authority trading standards officers.
The Government recognise the terrible impact that acquisitive crime can have on individuals, families, businesses and the wider community. That includes, especially, the invasive nature of burglary, the cost and disruption when vehicles and other tools of the trade that people rely on to earn a living are stolen, and the loss of cherished items that simply cannot be replaced. Those crimes should of course be reported to the police so that they can be investigated appropriately. As Members know, we are boosting the police workforce through the uplift campaign, which has so far delivered almost half of the 20,000 additional officers promised by 2023. We are making progress, but we will never be complacent when it comes to keeping the public safe.
Over the summer, the Government published the beating crime plan, which sets out our blueprint for driving down crime. We are providing £45 million through rounds 1 and 2 of the safer streets fund to support areas across England and Wales that are disproportionately affected by crimes such as burglary and theft to invest in proven situational, physical crime prevention measures, such as street lighting and home security. Round 1 supported 52 projects across 35 police and crime commissioner areas in the 2020-21 financial year. Round 2 is being delivered in the following financial year, supporting a further 50 projects across 39 PCC areas. A further £25 million for round 3 of the fund will be targeted at improving the safety of public spaces, with a primary focus on the safety of women and girls. That brings the total investment in the safer streets fund to £70 million.
The beating crime plan also sets out wider action that the Government are taking to improve home security, which includes embedding security standards and crime prevention principles within the national model design code and developing minimum standards as part of the review of a housing health and safety rating system, to ensure that domestic security is not just a privilege for some.
We are considering how we can go further in using the decent homes standard to keep social housing residents secure and help tackle antisocial behaviour. We are consulting on proposals to extend the security requirement in part Q of the building regulations to existing homes too. The intention of the proposed changes is to help ensure that refurbished properties are fitted only with products, such as doors and windows, that meet security standards. As my hon. Friend will know, it is currently applicable only to new homes.
Mark Pawsey
The Government have introduced a whole range of measures to improve security and make people feel safer in their homes, and those are of course very welcome. However, one key point is that the regulation of locksmiths was last looked at 20 years ago. Would the Minister undertake to accept a representation from the Master Locksmiths Association setting out how things have changed in those intervening years, and to give further thought to how we might deal with the issue of rogue locksmiths?
Damian Hinds
Of course, we are always open to representations and want to hear from trusted voices in the industry. I would encourage the association to continue engaging with officials at the Home Office.
I am coming towards the end of my remarks, so let me set out our overall position. Any broadening of the remit of the Security Industry Authority would require careful consideration of how we balance public protection against the ability of the sector to operate effectively before we embarked on what would obviously be a required legislative process. As yet, we do not judge that there has been a sufficient business case to justify the licensing of locksmiths under the Private Security Industry Act 2001.
As my hon. Friend knows, there is already a robust certification scheme in place from the Master Locksmiths Association. That scheme, which is approved by the police crime prevention initiative, Secured by Design, ensures that approved locksmiths are appropriately inspected and qualified to deliver the services required by customers—as he rightly says, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. The association also provides guidance and advice to consumers on pricing, products and equipment, hiring locksmiths and how to spot scammers.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Master Locksmiths Association for its efforts to ensure that the public are further protected against scammers and rogue traders via its approval scheme. As I said, I would encourage members of the public to utilise the association’s advice, and I would also encourage locksmiths to use the scheme.
Let me end by expressing my thanks once again to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate and for the thoughtful contribution that he made. The fight against crime is a key priority for the Government, and I can assure hon. Members on both sides that we will continue doing everything in our power to make our villages, towns and cities safer.
Question put and agreed to.
Motor Insurance: Court Judgments
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking. This is in line with current Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. As a result of votes earlier, the debate will go on until 5.45 pm, notwithstanding any votes that we may have during this debate.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of recent court judgments on the cost of motor insurance.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Bardell. I would also like to warmly welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), to her role. I am sure that she is going to be a great success.
Today, I want to make the case for the removal of the EU rules contained in the European Court of Justice judgment in the case of Damijan Vnuk v. Zava rovalnica Triglav d.d. I would like to thank my constituent Robert Rams and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau for alerting me to this problem and providing some very helpful briefing information.
Mr Vnuk was the victim of an accident involving a reversing tractor inside a barn in a farmyard in Slovenia. He took his compensation claim to the European Court of Justice. In the United Kingdom, an incident of this nature would be covered by our compulsory employer’s liability insurance regime, but not all EU member states have such a scheme to protect employees in the workplace. In its 2014 judgment, the ECJ therefore shoehorned Mr Vnuk’s compensation claim into the EU’s motor insurance law. In doing so, it extended the scope of compulsory motor insurance to accidents on private land involving a very broad range of vehicles—essentially, anything with wheels and a motor that does not run on rails, no matter where it is used or for what purpose. This is manifestly different from the compulsory motor insurance requirement in the Road Traffic Act 1988, which applies to vehicles that are permitted to be used on our streets and roads.
The UK’s approach to compulsory motor insurance has been consistent since the 1930s. It is proportionate and it works. However, Vnuk had direct effect in EU law, and that means that it forms part of the retained EU law imported on to our domestic statute book via the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As a result of cases in the UK courts, such as Lewis v. Tindale, the UK’s compensation fund for people injured by uninsured drivers is now obliged to pay out in the circumstances covered by the Vnuk judgment.
The UK compensation fund is run by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, and every driver who takes to our roads funds the scheme through their motor insurance premiums. The combined effect of the Vnuk and Lewis cases and the 2018 Act is that the scheme is now having to bear very significant costs for which it was never designed, and motorists are left picking up the bill. Let us be clear about what we are talking about here: accidents on private land, in private gardens, in farmer’s fields, on golf courses, inside supermarkets, in banks or in offices—the list is long. These are places where what has happened, or even the fact that anything occurred at all, will often be difficult to establish with any clarity, and that gives rise to worrying opportunities for fraud. The extension of compulsory insurance to motor sport is a further side effect of the case.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent case, and unfortunately this Chamber cannot legislate. However, is she aware that salvation is perhaps on its way from our hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)? He has a Bill before the House, the Motor Vehicle (Compulsory Insurance) Bill, the Second Reading of which is on 22 October, which should deal with the very point that she is making.
Theresa Villiers
I am aware of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I will come to it in a moment and I hope it has the potential to solve the problem. The trouble is, can we get it through Parliament?
The extension to motorsports is problematic for many reasons. For many people who enjoy participating in motorsports the costs of the new requirement—even assuming they can get the compulsory cover, which must be doubtful in some cases—will be very high. I understand that motorsports organisations and many participants in those sports have raised serious concerns about the judgment and asked for it to be removed from UK law. Although of course we can have a legitimate debate on the potential extension of compulsory insurance and compensation schemes to new scenarios, there can be no justification for leaving drivers to shoulder the whole cost by artificially forcing these new liabilities into our existing motor insurance scheme.
The sums at stake are very large. The Government Actuary’s Department has estimated that total annual costs could rise to more than £2 billion, which would mean roughly an extra £50 on the insurance premium of every motorist in the United Kingdom. That will hit hardworking people who may be struggling to make ends meet.
Of course, £50 is an average, so a disproportionate increase in premiums is likely to fall on groups such as young drivers, who already pay more because they constitute a higher risk during their first years on the road. Businesses with fleets of vehicles will be hit hard at a time when they may be struggling already to recover from the effects of lockdown, and motorists in parts of the north of England, where in some cases premiums are higher, could also end up paying more, which would work against the Government’s laudable levelling-up aspirations.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate; I share her aim that legislation be introduced to reverse this situation. She will be aware that legislation was passed in Parliament to reduce insurance premiums by around £50 on average, I believe, from whiplash compensation. Would it not be most unfortunate if that £50 saving, which everyone warmly embraces, was loaded back on as a result of this judgment?
Theresa Villiers
It would indeed be most unfortunate, and I am grateful to all the hon. Members who are here to make such points on the need to resolve this issue because of the potential pressure on household budgets.
In a column in The Daily Telegraph, the Prime Minister —in the years before he became Prime Minister, of course—described Vnuk as the “perfect example” of the over-regulation that had
“sapped the competitiveness of the EU and burdened it with low growth and high unemployment.”
He continued:
“There is no need, no call, no demand, no appetite, no reason, no justification, not even the shred of the beginnings of a case—in the United Kingdom—for this kind of pointless and expensive burden on millions of people.”
Against that background. it would have been reasonable to expect the Government to remove the effects of Vnuk from UK law once the transition period ended. There is nothing to prevent them. Under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, a simple piece of primary legislation is needed to make the change. In a February press release, the Transport Secretary said that his Department intended to do just that, adding that he was delighted to announce that we no longer needed to implement Vnuk.
Sadly, since then, not a great deal appears to have happened. Nothing on this was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech in May. In late June, the Transport Secretary did issue a written ministerial statement, which is welcome. In it, he said that delivering the commitment announced in February was a priority and that the Government would follow the passage of the private Member’s Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough “with interest”.
As we have heard, my hon. Friend’s Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill would deliver the legislative change we need. I very much welcome the Bill and urge Hon Members to support it when it returns to the House on 22 October. I gather that the Department for Transport has advised on the drafting of the Bill, so hopefully, as the Prime Minister might say, it is oven ready.
I hope this debate will give the Bill some momentum and reassure hon. Members who follow Friday business with care that the issues it seeks to address have received proper scrutiny in this House. However, as everyone here today will understand, a presentation Bill of this nature almost never gets the parliamentary time it needs to reach the statute book. It takes an extraordinary amount of good fortune and a very fair wind for such a Bill to make any progress at all. In the Sessions from 2010 to 2019, 470 presentation Bills were tabled and only six became the law of the land. I am afraid a Government Bill is needed, along with adequate parliamentary time set aside for it to be debated and passed, perhaps as part of a wider regulatory reform Bill going through Parliament. As yet, there is no sign of that happening.
Meanwhile, even as this rather sorry state of affairs in Westminster persists, the irony is that Brussels has been working on a package of changes to EU law that would remove the most extreme effects of the Vnuk case. The rapporteur of the European Parliament described the case as an example of “absurd over-regulation”. The changes have been approved by the Council of Ministers and apparently passed by the European Parliament, so their entry into effect would appear to be fairly imminent. When that happens, we could face the bizarre situation where the UK is forced, by its own law, to continue to apply that absurd over-regulation because its effect was frozen into our legal system as retained EU law at the end of the transition period. In the meantime, the EU has taken action to mitigate the problem, relieving its own motorists of the unfair cost burdens the case imposes.
I do not think that that is what taking back control should look like. Now we have left the European Union and regained the power to make our own laws in this country, we need to use our new freedoms wisely to build a regulatory system that is more proportionate, more agile, more adaptable and better suited to our domestic circumstances here in the UK.
Earlier this year, I was asked by the Prime Minister to be part of his taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform. The report we published contains a series of ideas for how the Government can create a modern regulatory framework that is based on core principles of domestic common law and that facilitates both innovation and competition. There are huge economic benefits to be realised if we do that, particularly in the high-growth, high-tech sectors of the future. Last week, it was encouraging to hear the Paymaster General outline the Government’s plans to do that in response to the TIGRR report, and the Minister responsible for EU relations, Lord Frost, is to be commended for the proposed regulatory reforms in the paper he circulated on the same day. However, one of the key barriers he faces is the fact that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 means that retained EU law can, in the main, only be amended or repealed using primary legislation. The Vnuk controversy shows that we urgently need a faster track way to remove or update EU laws that no longer work for us, most of which arrived on the statute book via secondary legislation in the first place.
My message today to the Minister and to the Government is that we need to get on with tackling the Vnuk problem. I urge them to take action now to put things right and remove the case from UK law. That will mean bringing forward their own Bill in Government time so that we can make repealing Vnuk a demonstrable benefit of leaving the European Union and regaining the historic right to make our own laws in our own Parliament once again.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
I will seek to call Opposition spokespeople by 5.23 pm and the SNP and Labour spokespeople will have five minutes each.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am extremely glad to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), for whom I have the highest regard as a lawyer, a member of the Conservative party that delivered Brexit and—if she does not mind my using the expression—a spartan, because she was one of the people who brought about the situation that we are happily in at the moment, whereby we have the ability to repeal legislation and to deal with some of the problems that she mentioned. In particular, I would mention the fact that the primary legislation in question would be authorised by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, section 38(2)(b) of which enables us to override any EU law through an expressed and direct provision in our own primary legislation and therefore to deal with the problem as a piece of primary legislation.
I listened very carefully to what my right hon. Friend said about the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), which will receive its Second Reading on 22 October 2021. I merely venture to suggest that there are some precedents for private Members’ Bills to be given some additional oomph by the Government. If they put their mind to it and have the commitment to do it, which I certainly believe should be the case in this instance, it can be done. In fact, I did just that in relation to the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014, because the Government gave me full support for a Bill that was languishing at around No. 17 in the private Members’ ballot. The Act did some very substantial things, including imposing on our development aid projects the commitment and guarantee that we would make it a legal, judicially reviewable duty to enforce the protection of women and children in relation to international development aid. If the Government can do it for that, I would suggest that, given the scale of the problem, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet so expertly described, there is very good reason for them to give support to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and to ensure that we get the results that are needed in the national interest, as identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet.
Sir Greg Knight
I agree with what my hon. Friend has to say. Does he agree that the quickest way to deal with this issue is for the Bill to go through on 22 October? He used the word “oomph”. It can go through quite simply, if the Government do not object to it. My understanding is that the Government are not going to object to it, but perhaps we could have some confirmation of that later.
Sir William Cash
I may say to my right hon. Friend, who is a very good friend of mine, that that is a very welcome piece of news, because this is exactly what happened in the case of the International Development (Gender Equality) Act. What happened was that the Clerks in the House were sitting there with bated breath to hear whether anyone was going to object, because all that has to be done on such an occasion is simply for any Member to object. It does not have to be a Whip; it can be any Member of the House. On that occasion, we got down to about No. 17 or 18 on the list—wherever I was. There was complete silence, and the Bill went through. That is what can happen, and I therefore strongly agree with what my right hon. Friends the Members for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) and for Chipping Barnet have said. I think this is a potential opportunity.
I was very interested in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said regarding the question of what the EU was up to at that stage. I am speaking as the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, and we shall keep an eye of these matters. We also propose reports, bring forward suggestions and inform the House accordingly in Hansard and so forth. On 30 June 2021, as my right hon. Friend said, the European Commission announced a decision to waive the requirement for UK drivers to show a motor insurance green card when entering the European Union. The decision needs to be fully implemented through publication in the official journal, and there is a waiting period of 20 days, so in the short term green cards are still needed.
The point I want to make is that on 29 June, the Transport Secretary published a ministerial statement, along the lines that my right hon. Friend mentioned, on the motor insurance directive—removal of Vnuk, in other words. It states the Government’s commitment, which the Minister announced on the Floor of the House:
“To remove the effects of the…ruling in the Vnuk case from GB law.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2021; Vol. 698, c. 8WS.]
Putting two and two together, if the Minister has said that the Government intend to remove the effects of it, and we have also the opportunity through the private Member’s Bill, and we know it is precedented for the Government to take the action I have described, I see the potential for a fair wind for this. That will be a tribute, not only to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, who has spoken today, but also my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough.
I would like to touch on the principles that underpin the issue of EU retained law. I will outline it by saying that the issue of EU retained law in this context arises partly in relation to the Road Traffic Act 1988, which has not yet been amended to comply with the European Court of Justice decision. Legislative change is necessary, as my right hon. Friend has said, to bring clarity on the matter, given that pre-exit European Court of Justice case law is now part of UK domestic law, as retained EU case law.
Given that, what is going to happen next? I will give a description of the extent, nature and depth of what my right hon. Friend for Chipping Barnet has rightly put forward, in one instance, with huge financial consequences, with the EU going into reverse, and the absurdity of our being in a position where the EU deals with it in its legislation and we are stuck with it in ours. I am now going to address the question of where I think the Government’s navigation should go.
In June 2016, just before the referendum, I was responsible for bringing forward a Bill that set out the basis on which the legislation after we won the referendum—as I was confident we would do—could be dealt with. There is a huge body of legislation, some of which I will refer to in general in a few minutes. Given the scale of the problem, the best thing to do was to deem all EU law as part of UK law, so that at least we grabbed hold of it as a whole, then we could deal with it on a piecemeal basis.
My Bill was one and a half pages long. The Bill we ended up confronting under the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), went far further and more regressively—if that is not a contradiction in terms—than was necessary, by incorporating the whole concept of EU retained law and the principles of EU law. With it came the assertion in section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 that the courts, if they wish to do so, given the circumstances of a case, would be enabled to quash any Acts of Parliament, if inconsistent with the judgments that they came to in interpreting the issues before them.
That is all very well, but those of us who are acquainted with the manner in which EU law was implemented under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, know very well that the Factortame case was the example above all others where the whole of the fishing industry was thrown into chaos, with Spanish fishermen invading our waters. The issue in question turned on the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. I remember saying to the Attorney General at the time that I thought it was a very unwise business for them to do introduce that Act, unless they put at the beginning, “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972.” Had they done that, then the judgment in Factortame, which struck down the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, could not have taken place because the courts would have been under an obligation to comply with the provisions of the Act, which would have said notwithstanding the Act of Parliament in question, the UK could legislate on its own account.
I referred to section 38(2) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which specifically contains the words “notwithstanding” and “direct effect”. It is notwithstanding the direct effect of any provisions that are on the statute book as part of EU retained law, and it enables us to override the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act and, some may care to note, the Northern Ireland protocol. So, the law is in place.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet indicated, it can be done by primary legislation. I am just adding a bit of flavour as to how it came about and how it can be done. I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and what he said in the context of the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough.
I turn to the question of the absurd situation identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and what the Prime Minister said about it some time ago, using very strong language. If it was an absurd position before he was Prime Minister, it is doubly so now, and that is why we need to tackle it. The intention behind the grandfathering, as it is called, in EU retained law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is making a very flavourful, detailed and interesting speech, but I gently remind him that we are trying to stick as best we can to the specific topic of the effect of the court judgment on the cost of motor insurance. He is giving us a very interesting tour of his knowledge of EU retained law, but I gently remind him of the topic.
Sir William Cash
I am very glad that you mention that, Ms Bardell. I am not giving a tour of my knowledge; I am giving a tour of the answer to the question that is before the Chamber at the moment. It is the only way it can be dealt with. The remedy is there, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has said.
I will pursue this point for a short few minutes, because it is really important to get this on record. The objective of the grandfathering of EU retained law was to maximise continuity and stability following our withdrawal, without an express commitment to keep this anomalous category of law on the statute books indefinitely. There are ambiguities in all this and they have to be resolved as well. As I have indicated, the most dangerous situation would be if the concept of EU supremacy continued to apply, notwithstanding what I have said.
We have one directive here. I can assure you, Ms Bardell, that the House of Commons Library briefing paper No. 08136, published in November 2017, identified up to 20,000 EU laws that fall into this category. Forgive me if I make the point again, but it is important that people understand the scale of the problem and the fact that it can easily be remedied. About 900 directives are in force, almost all of which apply to the UK, which are not generally retained, and there are 12,484 regulations, around 7,000 of which were incorporated in the UK as
“the amended legislation is considered as one with the legislation amending it”.
There are 7,000 EU decisions, which are converted through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act and apply to the UK. That also includes European court judgments and case law before exit date, converted to UK law as retained EU case law.
I am now Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, having been on the Committee for 38 years, with my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay). I can assure the Chamber that there is a very easy way to achieve this, but it is a complicated political manoeuvre, which is now under consideration by the Government. These laws were passed under qualified majority vote, as was the ports directive, for example, which I believe is now on the execution block for the same reason. It was done by qualified majority voting behind closed doors, and much of the legislation that emerged out of the Single European Act is stuff that we would never have implemented ourselves.
In a nutshell, this is a serious matter. It raises questions of sovereignty and the role of the courts, and it raises practical questions of the scale that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has referred to. One incident she mentioned would cost the British taxpayer £1 billion. That is the scale of the necessity to get this right. I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister. She and I have got to know one another very well over the past few years and I am delighted that she has got the job.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Gentleman. We will now move to the Front-Bench speeches. I call the SNP spokesperson, Alan Brown.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I must say, I thought that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) was taking the guidance that Front-Bench speeches would start at 5.23 pm. It was a challenge for him to last that long, and it was certainly a good effort.
It has been a wide-ranging debate. Clearly, the main subject was the Vnuk ruling, but we have covered the failure of the private Member’s Bill process and how EU retained law is dealt with. I commend the hon. Member for Stone on his private Member’s Bill in terms of the gender equality and protection for women and children via international aid, which sounds very noble. I think that is very worthy, but I do not think we can compare it to having to try and accelerate and give oomph to the private Member’s Bill from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) that relates to this.
I should congratulate the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on introducing this debate. If ever I was in doubt that it might be Brexit-related, I only had to look at her hon. Friends to the left and right to know that it was going to be Brexit-related and about taking back control. The irony is that it looks like we are taking back control to allow our retained legislation to match what the EU is going to be doing anyway, so it is a funny kind of taking back control. Certainly, we have covered the fact that EU retained law has to be addressed with primary legislation. I do agree that in some circumstances that may need to be looked at in how these things are dealt with.
I am not convinced of the merits of Government time to introduce this in primary legislation. If action is taken, we need to look at how we do that. If we can save drivers an average of £50 per premium, that is clearly welcome, but I can think of a raft of primary legislation that I have been waiting for the Government to introduce in the energy sphere, and they keep saying that they do not have time. It would be interesting if they magically found time to deal with changing the Vnuk ruling.
On insurance costs, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet correctly said that the more expensive premiums are, the more difficult it is for younger drivers and those with less money to afford the premiums. It can be regressive. I would like to remind hon. Members that most of the Conservative Members here voted for insurance premiums to go up from a 6% levy in 2015 to a 9.5% levy and then up to a 12% levy in 2017. That had the same effect on young drivers and those who can least afford insurance premiums. It is a regressive way of taking more money off those who are paying insurance, and there is a risk that there will be more uninsured drivers on the road, which has consequences for premiums further down the line for everybody. This is a slight tangent, but on people being able to afford premiums, the £20 a week cut to universal credit that the Conservatives seem to support puts at risk people’s ability to afford to drive. Unfortunately, it might incentivise some not to insure their car, and we do not want to see that.
I have been very brief. I welcome the comments of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet about the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, which points out that much of what will happen in terms of private land agricultural vehicles will be covered by compulsory employer’s liability. If we can make savings, good.
I ask the Minister to address what we suggested about motor sports, because we do not want any unintended consequences. If there is not compulsory insurance for motor sports, what does that mean? Is there a risk that people will not have a route to compensation? Are they left exposed? I just want to make sure that if the complete Vnuk ruling is taken away, there are no unintended consequences that leave other people exposed and potentially out of pocket through no fault of their own if they are trying to chase damages due to what they have suffered. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, and I welcome her to her place.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Bardell, and to welcome the new Minister to her place. I assume this is her first appearance in a debate as Minister. It is a rather niche topic with which to start, but I look forward to doing battle with her on many future occasions.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on securing the debate. I thought she did a very good job of explaining the background to the Vnuk case and the consequences it will have. As she said, we have operated under the scheme set out in the Road Traffic Act for many decades. It is proportionate and it works. That is not to say that we should not revisit it from time to time to make sure that it does the job. As she says, at the moment the cost of uninsured drivers is being met by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. In my former life as a lawyer I was involved in quite a few personal injury cases, so I am very aware that the Motor Insurers’ Bureau has an important role to play in providing compensation when people have been involved in accidents involving uninsured drivers. I take the points that the right hon. Lady makes.
I will not do battle with the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) over his views on Brexit. I have been there before, and most of us are well aware of where he is coming from. It is important, as we seek to find a way through our independence from the European Union and review some of the legislation, that we stick to basic principles and promises made during the debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 about not watering down workers’ rights and essential protections. Any measures that venture into that territory ought to be subject to proper scrutiny, and we must ensure that the balance is right.
On the hon. Gentleman’s comments about private Members’ Bills, it is great that none of the usual suspects objected to his Bill, which was No. 16 on the list, but on many occasions they have objected to very good Bills that should at least have been allowed to go into Committee. It should not depend on who a Member’s mates are and whether they behave themselves. I hope that at some point we reform Friday sittings, so that individual Members cannot sabotage good pieces of legislation in that way.
On the issue before us, the Transport Secretary has stated that steps to overturn the Vnuk decision will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity. I am not sure whether that means that the Government will allow time for the Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), or whether they intend to do it themselves. I share the concern voiced by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who asked whether to take such steps would be the best use of Government time, as there are so many other pressures on that time. I hope that we can hear more from the Minister on that.
More broadly, in the little time I have left, I simply say that I hope we can hear about other ways in which we can try to reduce insurance claims, and therefore the overall cost of motor insurance. I have been told by issuers that the vast majority of claims have nothing to do with accidents, but result from the condition of the roads. We have an £11 billion backlog for pothole repairs, which at current rates will take more than a decade to clear. Total spending on road maintenance is down by 22% this year because of cuts in Government funding. We also need to improve road safety. I know that new statistics are coming out on 30 September, but advance reports suggest that the upward trend in the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured has continued, which is very worrying.
Finally, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said, it is one thing to talk about whether people could afford the extra £50 a year on motor insurance premiums that would result from the Vnuk judgment, but we are in a situation where people are being hit by the end of furlough, the £20 cut to universal credit and the national insurance hike. We need to ensure that people who need to drive can afford their motor insurance and can afford to drive safely. We need to look at the whole picture in the round, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Bardell, or indeed under any Chair in Westminster Hall as a Minister. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for securing this debate on the effects of recent court judgments on motor insurance. I welcome the opportunity to provide an update and set out the Government’s position on this matter.
We have always been clear since the 2014 European Court of Justice’s ruling in the Vnuk case that we do not agree with it. That decision directed the unnecessary extension of the provisions requiring motor insurance to private land, as well as to a much greater range of vehicles. The excessive liabilities that it would place on the insurance industry and the potential increases to motor insurance are simply unacceptable. To be clear, if we had implemented Vnuk, which we are not going to do, these liabilities and potential increases are huge; they are not trivial. Government analysis suggests that Vnuk could have cost industry some £2 billion per year, and that would most likely have been passed on to consumers in increased insurance premiums.
Focusing on motorcar policyholders, that could have resulted in an increase in individual insurance premiums of around £50 for 25 million consumers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) referenced, if Vnuk had been implemented, it would have had a catastrophic effect on the motorsport industry, and indeed all motorists. Vehicles would likely have been required to purchase motor insurance to compensate injury caused to other drivers, stewards and spectators. Motorsport in the UK is safe and highly regulated. Employer’s liability and public liability already provide a high level of protection, so adding a motor insurance requirement would have brought little benefit at a very high cost—some £458 million per year—had Vnuk been implemented.
Stakeholders have consistently informed us that it would have been prohibitively expensive for most of the sector, effectively making the motorsports industry unviable. The sector turns over almost £3 billion annually, generating full-time employment for around 38,000 people and part-time work for a further 100,000. That is why we announced that we would remove the effects of Vnuk from GB law in February, and delivering on that includes removing the associated financial liability imposed on the Motor Insurers’ Bureau via the Courts’ decisions in the Lewis case.
This commitment is a priority for the Government. Its removal is part of a new and prosperous future for the UK outside of the EU—a future where we can deregulate and set our own rules and regulations. At this point, I must commend the tenacity of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) in challenging and successfully and competently setting out the direction he recommends that we take. His detailed knowledge provides important context on matters of EU legislation and is paralleled only by his ability to recall details and dates, which the debate has certainly benefited from.
That is why we will continue to explore bringing forward the necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows, as it has not proved possible to provide a slot for a Government vehicle to disapply the effects of the Vnuk and Lewis judgments during this parliamentary Session. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that responding to the pandemic was and remains of the utmost importance, and that we are still in a challenging time.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
It is very kind of the Minister to give way, and I welcome her to her new post. As outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), there are European Court of Justice judgments and instances where that law was applied to this country while we were in the EU that we did not agree with, and we were probably outvoted under qualified majority voting at the time. Does her Department have officials looking at other instances, such as the Vnuk case, that can be expunged from our legal system at the soonest opportunity, because we never wanted them in the first place?
Trudy Harrison
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and it would only be appropriate to write to him with further details. It is also appropriate to put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet for her work on the taskforce that generally assesses the potential for dealing with some of those unnecessary regulations.
Ultimately, the Government face many competing priorities in deciding what legislation to bring forward in the limited parliamentary time available. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) asked whether the Government would support the Bill—we are certainly supportive. I hope that is music to his ears. The legislation proposed in the presentation Bill represents the best opportunity to address the issue at the earliest possible opportunity. Rest assured that the Government recognise the importance of the matter. We will be following the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill with interest, as it would deliver the desired effects of removing Vnuk from GB law.
The Government would like to see the presentation Bill being brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) succeed. The Government have worked hard to seize the opportunity to legislate quickly, as we recognise its importance. However, I am sure that all Members will appreciate that the usual pressures on parliamentary time have been made even greater by the amount of emergency legislation passed in the previous Session. The presentation Bill offers the best and earliest opportunity to make that change quickly and deliver the positive outcomes of removing Vnuk, which many Members have referenced today.
I was pleased to hear support from the spokespersons from the SNP and Labour, the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I very much look forward to their support when the presentation Bill comes forward. Indeed, I would invite the whole House to lend their support.
Alan Brown
I said that the Government need to make sure that no loopholes are created—that no categories fall between the cracks, so that insurance is not compulsory; motorsports was mentioned. If the Government are letting the Bill brought by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) pass through, will they do some sort of risk or impact assessment?
Trudy Harrison
My officials have been examining the detail. If the hon. Gentleman would write to me with the specifics, I will be very happy to write back with a more detailed response.
The presentation Bill will comprehensively remove the effects of Vnuk and Lewis from GB law. The Government regard the Bill as uncontroversial, hence its provisions being appropriate for a presentation Bill. That is possible because the UK has a very strong consumer protection arrangement in place, via existing insurance products such as employer’s liability and public liability. Removing the effect of Vnuk will save the industry and consumers money without having any substantive downsides.
The Bill will have many positive effects beyond the headline objectives of removing the effects of Vnuk and saving motorists money. First, it will ensure that the law concerning third-party motor insurance in Great Britain is consistent. Currently, the Road Traffic Act 1988 does not require motor insurance for use of vehicles on private land, as its focus is on the road and other public places. It extends its scope to a sensible range of vehicles, as defined in the Act. The retained EU case law that would be removed by the presentation Bill contradicts that, by extending mandatory third-party motor insurance requirements to private land and to a potentially much greater range of vehicles. The law currently points in two different directions, and the Bill is a good opportunity to bring clarity to the law.
Secondly, it will head off potentially enormous enforcement complications. Had we implemented Vnuk, the police would potentially have been required to monitor newly in-scope vehicles never intended to go anywhere other than someone’s garden. The difficulty in gaining access to sites of collisions on private land may have led to the need for additional police powers and a practical effect of less enforcement of uninsured vehicles and of encouraging crime.
Thirdly, implementing Vnuk would have meant that a huge range of newly in-scope vehicles would suddenly have been required to be registered on the DVLA database, with licence plates required. It would have been preposterous to have to stick on a licence plate and register a ride-on lawnmower that never left the back garden.
Kerry McCarthy
While we are on the subject of uninsured vehicles, when can we expect to see regulations on e-scooters? There are so many of them—300,000 privately owned scooters are used on our streets, as well as the legitimate pilot schemes. When will the Government accept that the pilots have done their job and come forward with some regulations?
Trudy Harrison
I can speak with some experience on this issue, because my constituency has been a trial area. We are assessing the various trials and will be able to respond to the hon. Lady’s question in due course.
We understand the importance of the Bill for many Members, and we will watch its passage with keen interest. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Bristol East mention the support for cycling. I am delighted to say that during the pandemic we saw a 46% increase in cyclists. That has had a positive effect on my Department’s active travel aspirations.
If the Bill fails—I encourage all Members to ensure that does not happen—the Government will continue to explore bringing forward the necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
I again thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet for raising this topic of debate. Our commitment to remove Vnuk from GB law and to end the liabilities that impact on the insurance industry remains a priority for us.
Theresa Villiers
I am grateful to the Minister for her thoughtful and comprehensive response. I am also grateful to everyone who has taken part in today’s debate and for the support that has been demonstrated for making this change to our law, reversing the unintended consequences of the Vnuk judgment. To respond to some of the points made by the Minister, this is a problem that is already happening. Because of the principle of direct effect, Vnuk-type claims are already coming in and in some instances are already being paid, so there is an urgency to this. It is not just a theoretical possibility: it is having an impact already, and in due course the costs could be very considerable, as the Minister said.
I also welcome the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) regarding the complexities of EU law. I reiterate that we need to look afresh at how we deal with the body of EU law, because if we have to bring forward primary legislation every time we need to change, amend or update it, that will make for a very crowded parliamentary timetable. We need to see whether we can start using secondary legislation in this context, as is being contemplated by Lord Frost. After all, the vast majority of this law arrived on our statute book as a result of secondary legislation, so I hope the Government will take away the fact that Vnuk is an example of a problem that will recur many times in future unless we make some changes to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.
Theresa Villiers
I had probably better not, because I am only supposed to be summing up. I hope that today’s debate has given some momentum to the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), which I encourage colleagues to support. Sadly, it only takes one Member of the House of Commons to object to that Bill for it to fall, but we have heard some sensible scrutiny of it today, which I hope will reassure some of those who follow these matters on Fridays with great care.
We all recognise that the pressure on the Government’s legislative programme is intense, and that that pressure has been made even more acute by the pandemic. However, I welcome the Minister’s assurance that the Government are supportive of the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, and that if it fails, they will look to legislate as soon as they have the opportunity. I urge them to take this issue seriously and to ensure that we remove Vnuk from the statute book as soon as is practicable, so that we save people costs on their motor insurance premiums and give a bit of a helping hand to families across the country who may be finding it difficult to make ends meet and pay the bills. It is unnecessary to impose this cost on them, and it is time that we legislated to remove that cost from them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the effect of recent court judgments on the cost of motor insurance.
Written Statements
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I welcome that Sir Wyn Williams, chair of the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, has today published a progress update which outlines the work already undertaken by the inquiry and the planned next steps. The Government look forward to receiving Sir Wyn’s final report by the end of 2022.
[HCWS298]
Recording and Reporting Suicides
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
As part of the Government’s work to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran, I am committed to ensuring that all veterans who may be struggling are able to access dedicated support. Achieving this depends on a good understanding of where support is needed, including a more comprehensive understanding of veterans who tragically take their own lives. I can announce today that the UK Government are working to develop a new method for recording and reporting cases of suicide within the veteran community. This will allow for the first publication of statistics of veterans who die by suicide each year in England and Wales, and we will continue to explore ways this can be replicated across the UK in the future.
The new method is being developed by the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, the Office for National Statistics and the Ministry of Defence following consultation across HMG and our devolved Administrations to determine the best approach. As set out in the ONS census output and analysis consultation, in 2023, the ONS will undertake analysis to compare the health of the veteran population, including the number of veterans with long-term health conditions or disabilities, with the general population. This analysis will also include suicide-related deaths of veterans. In the interim, we will be working with the ONS and the MOD to conduct a 10-year look back at veteran deaths by suicide. This work will inform us about how many veterans have died through suicide and other causes including drug and alcohol misuse from 2011-21, and to estimate the number that died homeless. We anticipate publishing this look back in autumn 2022.
In the strategy for our veterans, the Government committed to improve the collection and analysis of data on veterans to inform future policy. This new work will ensure we are meeting that commitment to better understand the tragic issue of suicide, understand its prevalence, and better inform future policy and interventions in support of the veteran community. This analysis will help the Government understand how many veterans die by suicide and using this data in combination with other research will enable us to better develop and target mental health and suicide prevention measures.
We are collaborating with Departments across Government to develop this new robust method and to ensure that we can better provide for those who have protected our country. In addition, the MOD, OVA and NHSE have partnered with Manchester University to investigate the antecedents to suicide in both serving personnel and veterans focusing on the year prior to the death. The study will be using data supplied by MOD on military service, information collected as part of the confidential inquiry into suicides and coroners' reports. The study will include all suicides between 1995-2017 and will complete in August 2022.
Every suicide is a tragedy, and our thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones to suicide. We urge all who may be struggling to reach out and access the support available. Those struggling to cope should call Samaritans for free on 116 123 (UK and ROI) or contact other sources of support, such as those listed on the NHS’s help for suicidal thoughts webpage. Support is available round the clock, every single day of the year, providing a safe place for anyone struggling to cope, whoever they are, however they feel, whatever life has done to them.
[HCWS299]
Contingencies Fund Advance
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will incur new expenditure in connection with the Government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic in 2021-22.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £6,000,000 for this new expenditure will be sought in a supplementary estimate for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £6,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
Further requests to the Contingencies Fund may be made as necessary to fund covid-19 activity delivered by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
[HCWS302]
Gambling Regulation
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)
On 7 June the Government announced that Malcolm Sheehan QC had been appointed to lead an independent review into the regulation of the Football Index gambling product and its operator, BetIndex Ltd. The terms of reference set out that the review was to provide an expert account of the actions taken by the Gambling Commission and other regulatory bodies throughout the period in which BetIndex held a gambling licence, provide recommendations as needed, and to inform the Government’s ongoing review of the 2005 Gambling Act. The independent review has now concluded, and the report has today been published on gov.uk.
I am grateful to Mr Sheehan and his team for their extensive investigation, thorough report and clear recommendations. I am also grateful to the Gambling Commission, Financial Conduct Authority and others for their co-operation with the review and their provision of evidence to support Mr Sheehan’s deliberations.
This independent expert report has been completed in such a way as to avoid prejudicing a number of ongoing processes and investigations into BetIndex Ltd. First, administration proceedings are continuing, looking at the assets and liabilities of the firm and what is owed to customers. It is likely that this process will result in some amounts being reimbursed to creditors. Secondly, the Gambling Commission is completing its separate regulatory investigation into BetIndex on which it will report in due course. Thirdly, the Gambling Commission has referred the company to the Insolvency Service to ask that it consider whether the actions of the directors prior to administration breached insolvency or fraud laws. Any comment on this matter needs to carefully avoid prejudicing any future legal proceedings.
Football Index was a novel and boundary-pushing product, and its business was materially impacted by covid-19 and the suspension of football. While the independent review focused on the actions of regulatory bodies, it did find that BetIndex did not properly notify the Gambling Commission of the nature of the product in its licence application, nor did it inform the regulator of changes to the product after launch as it was required to. This made scrutiny harder.
Nonetheless, the report identifies areas where the Gambling Commission could have been more effective in responding to the challenges raised by the novel product from its licensing to eventual collapse, including in early scrutiny, speed of decision making and action, and escalation of issues when barriers arose. By 2019 it was aware of concerns about the product and launched an investigation, but by that time Football Index had grown to such an extent that large amounts of customer money were already involved. The report helps us understand why certain decisions were made at the time and what we can learn from that.
While BetIndex Ltd was never regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, the report also looked at its role in working with the commission, identifying some areas of improvement including in speed of response to requests from the commission and consistency of messaging on regulatory responsibilities.
It is now essential that we learn the lessons from this case and ensure a similar situation does not happen again. I am pleased that the Gambling Commission is carrying out an action plan to address the issues identified. In the weeks since the draft report was shared the commission has:
Updated the frameworks for risk based regulation so that product novelty is properly considered alongside other factors in determining the level of scrutiny an operator is placed under.
Committed to consulting on tighter rules for the terminology used to describe gambling products, putting beyond doubt that gambling must be clearly described as gambling and not an investment.
Commenced a review of all remote licensees to check for issues relating to boundary pushing products.
Agreed to provide formal advice to the Government on the issue of protecting customer funds as part of the Gambling Act review. This is in addition to their current business plan’s commitment to review the existing three-tiered approach.
The commission and the FCA have also worked together to strengthen their memorandum of understanding in response to Mr Sheehan’s recommendations, including with new escalation routes and commitments on timeliness of responses to ensure regulatory impasses cannot remain unsolved. The FCA has additionally:
Nominated an Executive Director to oversee the relationship with the commission.
Continued to pursue the programme of change as set out in its July Business Plan.
The report has also raised some important questions for the Government’s ongoing review of the Gambling Act 2005 which is already taking a comprehensive and evidence-led look at gambling in this country, including a close examination of the Gambling Commission’s powers and resources. The Gambling Commission is not required to monitor the financial viability of companies on an ongoing basis. However, our Act review will consider whether the commission should require gambling companies to do more to demonstrate their ability to cover liabilities arising from long-term bets, especially if they make up a large proportion of their business. The gambling White Paper which we will publish in due course will answer this question and set out the Government vision for the sector.
A copy of Mr Sheehan’s final report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS301]
National Artificial Intelligence Strategy
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I am pleased to lay before the House the UK’s first national artificial intelligence strategy, which represents a step change in the Government approach to this transformative technology.
The UK is already a world leader in Al. From trailblazing pioneers like Alan Turing and Ada Lovelace to UK-based Al companies such as DeepMind and Benevolent Al, the UK leads the world in the fundamental research, industrial application and commercialisation of the technology.
The challenge now for the UK is to fully unlock the power of Al and data-driven technologies, to build on our early leadership and legacy, and to look forward to the opportunities of this coming decade. This strategy outlines our vision for how the UK can maintain and build on its position as other countries also race to deliver their own economic and technological transformations. This will be achieved through three pillars:
Investing in the needs of the ecosystem to see more people working with Al, more access to data and compute resources to train and deliver Al systems, and access to finance and customers to grow sectors;
Supporting the diffusion of Al across the whole economy to ensure all regions, nations, businesses and sectors can benefit from Al; and
Developing a pro-innovation regulatory and governance framework that protects the public.
Al will be central to how we drive growth and enrich lives, and the vision set out in the strategy will help us achieve both of those vital goals.
The Office for Artificial Intelligence—a joint unit of DCMS and BEIS—will publish an execution and monitoring plan to track the success of the strategy and the wider impact of Al on our economy, society and Government.
A version of the national Al strategy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS300]