House of Commons

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 19 October 2021

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

1. What recent steps his Department has taken to increase NHS capacity.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

16. What recent steps his Department has taken to increase NHS capacity.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

19. What recent steps his Department has taken to increase NHS capacity.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)]

The NHS will receive an extra £5.4 billion for the second half of this financial year to support its response to covid-19. This includes an extra £1 billion to help to tackle the treatment backlog and £478 million to continue the enhanced hospital discharge programme, freeing up beds. This brings the total extra investment in health and care services so far this year, during the pandemic, to £34 billion.

[Julian Sturdy]

My wonderful local charity York Against Cancer has been approached by York Hospital regarding the part funding of a da Vinci robotic cancer surgery system. This revolutionary machine allows for fewer and smaller incisions, meaning faster patient recovery, shorter hospital stays and, ultimately, better and faster cancer care. Will the Secretary of State assure me that he fully supports local collaboration, wherever needed, to introduce these machines and that he is doing everything he can to roll out this new technology across our health service?

[Sajid Javid]

I assure my hon. Friend that cancer care, whether provided through these machines, diagnostics or in any other way, remains an absolute priority for the Government. Colleagues will understand that some cancers were not diagnosed during the pandemic, and I join him in congratulating York Against Cancer on the work it is doing. I would like to learn more about this machine and to see how we can make it work throughout the NHS.

[Andrew Jones]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and welcome the extra investment he outlined, but too often we talk about catch up in terms of physical health. What is he doing to catch up on mental health, particularly mental health beds?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of mental health. He will know that one of the unintended consequences of the lockdowns is that, sadly, there were more cases of mental ill health. The NHS long-term plan commits to increasing investment in mental health at least as fast as investment in physical health, with at least £2.3 billion of extra spending on mental health by 2023-24, which I hope he welcomes.

[Nigel Mills]

Local general practitioners report that they are working as hard as they ever have, with full lists of appointments, but constituents are still unhappy that they cannot get appointments quickly or in the format they would like. Is there more the Government could do to help local GPs across the country to give patients the service that they want and that GPs want to provide?

[Sajid Javid]

We are hugely grateful for the tireless efforts of GPs and their teams throughout the pandemic. In our comprehensive new plan, which we announced last week, we are including a £250 million winter access fund to support GPs and make it easier for them to see and speak to their patients. A record number of GPs began training in 2021, and we are committed to increasing the number to 4,000 each year.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I start by paying my respects to Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire, who were sadly taken from us far too soon.

I welcome the Minister for Care and Mental Health, the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), to her new brief. I look forward to working with her.

We are all too aware of the growing demand for support across the NHS, but all too often mental health treatment is forgotten. With up to 10 million more people thought to require treatment as a result of the pandemic, with waiting lists soaring and with beds being cut, we need more than just warm words from the Government. Labour will guarantee treatment, not just an assessment, starting within a month, and we will recruit 8,500 new staff so that 1 million additional people can receive the timely treatment they so deserve. That is what came out of our conference from our party leader. There was nothing of equal value from the Prime Minister, bar recycled old pledges and money spent four times over. Why?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Secretary of State.

[Sajid Javid]

Sorry, Mr Speaker. I did not realise the hon. Lady had finished. What she calls old pledges are hugely significant, and they continue to play a significant role. The NHS long-term plan, as I said a moment ago, has £2.3 billion extra each year by 2023-24. That extra investment will support 380,000 more adults and 345,000 more children.

The hon. Lady is, of course, right that the number of cases of mental ill health has sadly grown during the pandemic, which is one of the reasons we published a mental health recovery action plan with an additional £500 million this financial year.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

NHS dentistry is facing a capacity crisis. There is a huge backlog of urgent care and treatment, which is leaving many dentists overwhelmed. Patients, including those in Pontefract and in towns across the country, are now unable to get routine check-ups, which is making the urgent care crisis worse and creating a vicious spiral. Will the Health Secretary ask his Ministers to meet dentist groups and patient groups in Yorkshire to hear about the urgent crisis they are facing and set out an urgent plan to deal with the huge capacity crisis in NHS dentistry?

[Sajid Javid]

The right hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of access to dentistry for her constituents and those across England. Dentists have done a fantastic job faced with the challenges of the pandemic. We all knew that those were very real for dentists, who, of course, could not see their patients in the normal way, and they have done everything they can to help on that. The measures that have recently been taken—the review by the United Kingdom Health Security Agency on infection prevention and control—will help. Reduced access has been a major cause of the backlog. We are also working with our colleagues in the NHS to see what more we can do.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

All Devon’s hospitals are on red alert, partly because of capacity issues caused by ongoing covid cases. Why does the Secretary of State think the UK now has the highest covid infection, hospitalisation and death rates in western Europe?

[Sajid Javid]

First, may I take this opportunity to congratulate all the health and care workers across Devon on the fantastic work they are doing? The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have set out clearly their approach to dealing with the pandemic and that we are very much focused on vaccinations, which are working, building a wall of defence, treatments and testing.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Further to the last question on NHS dentistry from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), we are in a difficult situation across North Yorkshire, where there is no NHS dentist availability across the whole of Thirsk and Malton. It will take the NHS two years to recommission the service in Helmsley—the closed practice in Helmsley—and the Thirsk practice has just closed its doors with its current list of patients. Will my right hon. Friend set out exactly what we can do to increase the availability of NHS dentistry?

[Sajid Javid]

Again, my hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. As we have just heard from other hon. Members, there is a real issue with dentistry across England, including in North Yorkshire, and we know how the pandemic has had an impact on that. Dentists have tried to do the best they can in those circumstances. The changes we are making to infection prevention and control will help. We are looking at further measures, and I understand that my hon. Friend will be meeting the Minister shortly to discuss his issues in North Yorkshire carefully.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

2. What recent estimate he has made of the size of backlogs in cancer diagnosis and treatment.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

11. What recent estimate he has made of the size of backlogs in cancer diagnosis and treatment.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)]

The number of people waiting longer than 62 days for treatment following an urgent referral for suspected cancer in England has come down considerably, from 35,000 people in May 2020 to about 19,000 people. The NHS is putting in place extra capacity to diagnose and treat cancer patients, with the aim of clearing the cancer backlog of patients waiting over 62 days from referral to first treatment by the end of March 2022.

[Daniel Zeichner]

To do that, we are going to need healthy NHS staff. I was alarmed to hear Cambridgeshire’s director of public health last week talking about the sheer scale of covid ripping through the school population and then into the parental cohort, many of whom, of course, will be working in the NHS. Peterborough currently has the highest number of cases it has had at any time during the pandemic. So what is the Government’s plan to keep NHS staff healthy, in order to allow them to tackle that alarming cancer backlog?

[Sajid Javid]

First, let me say that NHS staff have done a phenomenal job throughout the pandemic in helping patients with cancer or any other illness. A comprehensive plan of support has been in put in place, with this Department working with our NHS colleagues carefully to provide, for example, advice and help. Extra mental health support has been provided as well, and we are looking to see what more we can do.

[Tony Lloyd]

My late constituent Anne began to suffer pain in April. She never had a GP visit. She had two visits to accident and emergency, which did not result in any treatment plan. Finally, after four months, she had a non-urgent visit to a urologist. Sadly, because at no point was she diagnosed with a terminal condition, she was not given access to hospice care and died in September. I put it to the Secretary of State that this is no way to treat an elderly lady and no way for her family to suffer. What is he going to do to guarantee that there will not be many more Annes in the months and years to come?

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that case. I am very sorry to hear about his constituent Anne and send my condolences to her family for what has happened.

The hon. Gentleman will understand that, during the pandemic, sadly, many people stayed away from the NHS, on which there was a huge amount of pressure. Despite everyone, especially those working in health and care, doing as much as they could, it just was not enough for some people. There is not only emergency spending to deal with the pandemic pressures—this year there is an additional £34 billion—but much more investment in equipment and diagnostic processes, such as the community diagnostic hubs that we announced last week, which will help to make a real difference.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Unsurprisingly, I have become more acutely aware of stories about backlogs in cancer diagnosis and treatment, the impact of which should not be underestimated, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s sensitive and sensible response. Will he join me in recognising the multidisciplinary teams throughout the country that are working non-stop to meet cancer pathway targets, including Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, which continued to operate cancer services throughout the pandemic last year and has met the 62-day target for 26 months in a row? Will he consider a visit to the hospital that treated me and thousands of others, to hear how the team there continues to strive to achieve improvements in diagnostic services and outcomes for cancer patients in my constituency and others in Kent?

[Sajid Javid]

Yes. It is great to see my hon. Friend, who speaks with real knowledge on this issue. Not only would I be pleased to visit that hospital but I wish to join her in congratulating the multidisciplinary teams throughout the country—especially the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells multidisciplinary trust—that have been doing fantastic work on cancer.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The proportion of people starting cancer treatment within one month has dropped to the lowest level on record. Some 30,000 fewer people are accessing cancer treatment than we would have expected pre-pandemic, and winter pressures have already caused chemotherapy to be paused in Nottingham. The Government’s plans simply are not working and the Secretary of State is denying reality. Will he make a commitment today that there are now sufficient resources for cancer services throughout the winter period that will protect staff from redistribution, so that they can continue to deliver the care and support that cancer patients need?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman may have heard me say a moment ago that, of course, cancer remains a huge priority for the NHS. Very sadly, there have been people who have waited longer than 62 days after urgent referral. The number has come down considerably in the past year, to 19,000 as of May 2021, but that is still 19,000 too many, which is why the NHS is rightly committed to clearing that completely by March 2022. That requires a lot more investment. There is the additional £34 billion this year, but it requires long-term, sustainable investment, which is why the plan we have announced for long-term funding over the next three years, with additional funding of at least £12 billion a year for health and care, will make a real difference.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

3. What steps the Government is taking to improve health outcomes for people with learning disabilities and autism.

[The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work as the Minister for Care and particularly for starting the work on the Oliver McGowan mandatory training. We are currently trialling the training to improve awareness and understanding of learning disability and autism for all health and care staff. The improvement of health outcomes for people with learning disability was also championed by our dear friend Sir David Amess; I shall think of him every day in this role and try my very best to live up to his expectations.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I warmly welcome the Minister to her role, which I know she will do with great care. Will she expand a little on the roll-out of the mandatory training for all health and care professionals working in learning disability and autism, which is, as she knows, named in honour of Oliver McGowan? Will she say when it is likely to be rolled out nationwide and what sort of funding will be attached to it? Will she also say when the annual GP health checks for people with learning disability or autism are likely to be rolled out throughout the country on a face-to-face basis post covid?

[Gillian Keegan]

We have started the trials and they are well under way. We are using three trial providers. Our final evaluation report is due in spring 2022 and I would be very happy to share that with my hon. Friend. The outcomes of this trial and the evaluation will inform the plans for the roll-out across the country. I am working closely with Paula and Tom, Oliver McGowan’s parents, who, incidentally, grew up in the same place that I did—in fact, two streets away. They are key stakeholders and, obviously, we will make sure that we set out the detailed plans for roll-out as soon as possible. I thank my hon. Friend and Paula and Tom for all the work that they have done in this area; it really is remarkable and will make a massive difference. On the annual health checks for people with learning disabilities, the NHS has already met its target two years ahead of time for 75% of people on the GP learning disability register to receive an annual health check. I would urge anybody to come forward to make sure that they take advantage of that very important step.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The Government have not responded to the report of the Health and Social Care Committee on the treatment of autistic people and people with learning disabilities and that response is now well overdue. Sadly, there is continued evidence of ongoing abuse of people with learning disabilities and autistic people. I point the Minister to the deaths reported at Cawston Park. There was a terrible report on that recently. This needs immediate and assertive action. Autistic people and people with learning disabilities are often trapped in inappropriate units for six years on average. By delaying their response, the Government are demonstrating apathy with regard to the terrible treatment in places such as Cawston Park and other units. When will the Government respond and act?

[Gillian Keegan]

I share the hon. Lady’s concerns; it simply is not good enough. The events at Cawston Park—my first response as a Minister to an Adjournment debate was on that subject—were unbelievable and deeply traumatic. My deepest condolences are with the families of Ben, Joanna and Jon. I have committed to meeting with the families at the earliest opportunity so that I can understand their experiences directly. This is currently being arranged by officials and the Norfolk Safeguarding Adults Board. The Department continues to work at pace through the delivery board of cross-Government and cross-system partners to drive progress on implementing the Building the Right Support national plan, which is ultimately the answer to have much better support in the community. We will publish an action plan, outlining all of the plans that we have, how we will improve outcomes and how we will enable people to live well in our communities.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

First, let me welcome my hon. Friend to her position. As chair of the all-party group on learning disability, I look forward to working with her.

On the point that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) raised, the Government have a plan to reduce the number of people in in-patient units—the assessment and treatment units—like the one at Winterbourne View, which delivered completely inappropriate treatment. When will that delivery plan be published? Her predecessor committed to doing it four months ago; she said that there was work to be done. Can my hon. Friend set out when it will be published so that we can press the Government on delivering those ambitious goals?

[Gillian Keegan]

I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend. I have been along to the first board, although I have not yet chaired it. But we will be developing that action plan. I cannot commit to the date but I will let him know as soon as I can when we will publish the plan. We will be publishing a winter plan for the NHS, which will include lots of different support, in the next couple of weeks.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her response. Given recent statistics that show that one in 20 schoolchildren in Northern Ireland has an autism diagnosis, may I ask her what steps have been taken here on the mainland to ensure that children with learning disabilities or autism have guidance in their health journey and are never left overwhelmed without specialised support at those very necessary appointments?

[Gillian Keegan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is right to identify this concern. Compared with the general population, people with learning disabilities are three times more likely to die from an avoidable medical cause of death. That is why these annual health checks to ensure that we get early diagnoses for these people are so important. That is why I am delighted that many people are coming forward and that the NHS is two years ahead of its plan here in England. Hopefully, others will follow that lead.

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

4. What plans his Department has to build a new hospital in Doncaster.

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

We have now received applications from trusts to be one of the next eight hospitals in our new hospital programme, which will be the biggest hospital building programme in a generation. I understand that an expression of interest has been submitted, proposing developments at the Doncaster Royal Infirmary site. Although I cannot comment on this particular application at this stage, I can tell my hon. Friend that we aim to make our final decision in spring next year.

[Nick Fletcher]

It appears that every time that I am fortunate enough to ask a question relating to health and social care, another disaster has happened at Doncaster Royal Infirmary. This time, it is a second water leak in the women’s hospital. Given that there is a maintenance backlog of £514 million and the newest part of Doncaster Royal Infirmary is older than the town of Milton Keynes, does my hon. Friend agree that a new hospital is not a “nice to have”, but an absolute necessity for the people of Doncaster? Will he please also visit Doncaster Royal Infirmary, although, with ceiling collapses and water leaks, he may need to bring a hard hat and some wellies?

[Edward Argar]

I cannot comment on the selection process while it is under way, but my hon. Friend is a strong and powerful advocate for his constituents and for a new hospital in Doncaster. He has met me a number of times and continues to raise this matter in the House. I should perhaps have taken him up on his offer of a visit in the summer, when it was sunny, but I am still certainly happy to take him up on that offer.

If I may briefly be indulged, Mr Speaker—we do not often have the opportunity to do this from the Front Bench—let me say that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for her kind words about our late colleagues, James Brokenshire and Sir David Amess. The last time I saw David was a few weeks ago, when he posed for a photo that he wanted with me and then tried to impress on me the question of whether I would come to the wonderful town of Southend.

[Mr Speaker]

City.

[Edward Argar]

Hang on, sir! I was about to say that I would be delighted to visit what is now the city of Southend. My only deep sadness is that our friend will not be there to meet me when I do so. He and his family are very much in our thoughts.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

5. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the (a) short-term and (b) long-term impact on public health of the ongoing odorous emissions from Walley’s Quarry in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)]

I commend my hon. Friend for his tenacity on the issue of Walley’s Quarry and for continuing to stand up for his constituents. As part of the multi-agency response, the UK Health Security Agency provides expertise and support to the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. On 4 May, the Secretary of State took appropriate action, writing to the Environment Agency, which regulates the landfill operation, and urging it to use its regulatory and enforcement powers over Walley’s Quarry Ltd to resolve the problems at the site. It has been strongly recommended that the Environment Agency takes appropriate measures as early as possible to reduce offsite odours from the landfill site and to reduce the concentrations in local areas to levels below the health-based guidance values used to assess long-term exposure.

[Aaron Bell]

I welcome the Minister to her place. This ongoing public health emergency in Newcastle-under-Lyme has been a real trial for my constituents. Does she agree that in future the Environment Agency will need to take into account the effects on public health—both physical and mental health—of odorous emissions and the gases that escape from landfills, so that no other town has to go through what we have in the last year?

[Maggie Throup]

I assure my hon. Friend that the Environment Agency takes the situation very seriously and is working with the operators of the site to address it as quickly and effectively as possible. I am sure that he will be pleased to learn that the Environment Agency has re-evaluated its regulatory approach following the outcome of the judicial review, and on 14 October published its plan to reduce the levels of hydrogen sulphide emissions at the site.

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)]

6. What estimate his Department has made of the number of people with Dandy-Walker syndrome in the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising a question on this rare but important condition. Public Health England’s national disease registration service contributed data to a European Dandy-Walker syndrome epidemiology study back in 2019. The results identified that the condition occurs in about 2.7 live births per 100,000. More work is currently being done to report on the number of people living with the condition in the United Kingdom.

[Simon Fell]

I thank my hon. Friend for doing the research on this question. One of my constituents, Steven Forster, came to see me during a surgery last summer. His granddaughter, Mia, is suffering with Dandy-Walker syndrome. As there is not the knowledge in the NHS about how best to treat the condition, like many families, when they do eventually find a doctor who has that knowledge, they have to travel a long way to see them and there is a huge cost attached to that. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend agree to meet some of the families across the UK who are trying to get together a support group on the issue, and consider putting together an NHS centre of excellence so that parents and carers know where to go for help?

[Maria Caulfield]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising his constituent’s granddaughter Mia’s case. With over 7,000 rare conditions, awareness among healthcare professionals can be difficult. That is why in January this year the Government set up the UK Rare Diseases Framework whereby officials are working with partners including Health Education England to raise awareness of rare conditions such as Dandy-Walker so that we provide training for staff and target education for healthcare professionals. I would be happy to meet him and his constituent to talk about this and listen to some of their concerns and experiences.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to provide a long-term solution to social care.

[The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)]

Last month the Prime Minister announced an unprecedented investment in social care to support our own futures and those of our loved ones and our growing ageing population. This investment of £5.4 billion will support the wellbeing of the 1.5 million-strong workforce, offer professionalisation and provide hundreds of thousands of training places. It will also fund supported housing, better advice and capped care costs at £86,000, removing the fear of spiralling care bills.

[Damian Green]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s answer, but she will acknowledge that even the promised better integration of health and social care, although very welcome, will not be enough. We need a long-term plan covering workforce issues, the use of technology, and provision whereby people can live in their own home for longer if we are to achieve ultimate success. If we do not solve all those issues, then I am afraid we will not have fixed social care.

[Gillian Keegan]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The forthcoming White Paper on adult social care reform, which we will publish before the end of the year, will set out our vision for the sector. It will cover issues that affect care users, including housing and innovation within our housing models, access to information and advice, and funding for the workforce. I am very happy to be meeting him on 4 November in his role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on adult social care to ensure that his insight and all the work that he and the APPG have done in this area are carefully considered.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her post. I listened carefully to what she said about the Government’s recent announcement. However, is not the reality, as the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services says, that all the additional money announced is going to the NHS in the first three years and little, if any, will ever make it to social care; there is nothing to deal with the overwhelming workforce pressures and increased levels of need we are experiencing right here, right now; and we will not see a single extra minute of care and support or an improved quality of life for older and disabled people or family carers? On top of this, at £86,000 the cap on care costs will not even stop people having to sell their homes to pay for care, and the vast majority of people will be dead before they ever reach the cap because it does not cover the costs of accommodation or food. How is this a long-term solution to social care, and is the Chancellor finally going to fill these gaping omissions in his Budget and spending review next week?

[Gillian Keegan]

I am sure the hon. Lady is in fact delighted that finally a Government have come forward with a plan for social care. In addition to that, this Government have spent an extra £34 billion this year in the NHS and we have raised the levy, which, as she says, will fund both the electives and the catch-up from the pandemic—we all know that many of our constituents need this—but there is also the £5.4 billion that is the biggest investment we have had in social care in this country. As things stand, one in seven adults over 65 face care costs of over £100,000 in their lifetime. Nobody will be forced to sell their home, as people will now have a very clear cap of £86,000 that will give families peace of mind that their assets will not be wiped out, and people can already take a deferred payment agreement so that their payments can be deducted from their estate after they die. Most people I have spoken to truly welcome this announcement and are absolutely convinced that this Government will introduce it.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

We all know that when the care sector is struggling, the NHS feels the pressure, and that is certainly the case in Gloucestershire at the moment. The demand for adult social care is increasing for us locally by 4% year on year, which is higher than the average, and the huge number of requests for new care packages means that there are now delays for domiciliary care, as the market cannot respond to demand. Will the Minister, who I welcome to her new post, tell the House and the Gloucestershire care sector that the Government are working to support us? Will she meet the six Gloucestershire MPs and the leader of the council to discuss this matter?

[Gillian Keegan]

This is absolutely vital. The recent announcement of £500 million over three years to fund social care professionalisation is very warmly welcomed by the sector. It is a sector that employs 1.54 million people. It is larger than the NHS, construction, transport or food and drink. I am of course happy to meet my hon. Friend and other Gloucestershire MPs. I know this issue is a challenge. We have some short-term actions, and it is a key pillar of our long-term reform.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

With the Government introducing a health and social care levy, will the Minister ensure that social care is not at the back of the queue for spending? Can she provide clarity about every penny of Barnett consequentials that will be given to the devolved nations?

[Gillian Keegan]

I am sure that the Chancellor will be setting out what will happen with the Barnett consequentials. Yes, this issue is important. The most important thing to say is that this is the start—we have £5.4 billion over the next three years for us to embed some of the changes we need in the system, but this levy will continue, and social care will be a big part of and a big beneficiary from that levy in the future.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the Minister recommend what North Northamptonshire Council has just done, which is to pay its social care workers as a minimum the real living wage and to backdate that to April this year? That would be a small step in helping with this situation.

[Gillian Keegan]

Yes, I completely agree. Some 95% of the jobs are with private providers, so it is important that they take care of their workforce. There is a lot of competition for labour and a lot of skills shortages in our country. Most workers are on just above the national living wage, but it worries me that a third are on zero-hours contracts, so there is a lot we can do to improve the terms and conditions of the social care workforce. My hon. Friend raises a good leadership example.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

8. If he will make it his policy to keep prescriptions free for people aged over 60.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)]

The Department’s consultation on aligning the age for free prescriptions with the state pension age closed on 3 September. The responses to the consultation are being reviewed, and we will outline the next steps in due course.

[Sarah Olney]

We know that low incomes are associated with worse healthcare outcomes and also that average prescription use is higher among those in more deprived areas. Will the Minister accept that increasing healthcare costs for those on low incomes will mean that health inequalities will widen, increasing the pressure on low-income families and the NHS this winter?

[Maria Caulfield]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I reassure her that around 90% of prescription items in the community are provided free of charge. Those who are vulnerable and on low incomes, such as those on universal credit, income support and jobseeker’s allowance, already qualify for free prescriptions. It is really important that those over the threshold can also apply for the prescription prepayment certificate, where all their items will cost just about £2 a week. We are making sure that costs are low for those on low incomes.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

Record levels of funding by the Scottish Government for primary care will protect free eye examinations and free prescriptions for people in Scotland and will also enable the abolition of all NHS dentistry charges. Will the Minister follow Scotland’s lead and commit to a similar policy for England?

[Maria Caulfield]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Although the Scottish Government provide free prescriptions, the money comes out of existing budgets, which means it is taken from elsewhere in the health service. That may be why, at the moment, three health boards in Scotland need the armed forces’ support to deal with their winter crisis.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to reduce elective procedure backlogs in the NHS.

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

We have committed an additional £1 billion this year to increase elective activity and tackle the backlog, doubling the £1 billion already provided through the elective recovery fund. Over the next three years, we plan to spend more than £8 billion to fund the biggest catch-up programme in NHS history, which comes atop, of course, the record £33.9 billion increase in funding and the health and social care levy.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Before asking my question, may I make a declaration of personal interest, namely, my age? People of my generation and older are finding more and more delays in elective procedures, but the response of the Government, as we just heard, appears to be to just pump more taxpayers’ money into the bottomless pit of the NHS, resulting in ever more waste and lower productivity. Why do the Government—this Conservative Government—not use innovative private sector solutions to relieve some of the pressure on the NHS? Why do they not do what the Major Government did—hardly right-wing extremists—and give tax relief for private health insurance?

[Edward Argar]

I have known my right hon. Friend for a long time and he is eternally youthful. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out, the record investment that we are putting into our NHS, particularly to address the elective procedure backlogs, goes hand in hand with innovation and reform.

To the specific point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the NHS is utilising the independent and private sector to carry out procedures for NHS patients. As he would expect me to say, however, tax breaks or similar are matters for the Chancellor, not me.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The thresholds of the elective recovery fund have a perverse impact, so hospitals with the least capacity are more unlikely to have the money to build their capacity. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that my constituents in York have funding from the Government to help build that capacity and have the elective surgery they need?

[Edward Argar]

In respect of the elective recovery fund and the thresholds, the hon. Lady recognised that they are an additionality alongside the record extra investment that we are putting into our NHS. We are putting more resources in, alongside reform and innovation, to deliver that increased capacity. The elective recovery fund is also designed to stimulate activity and to reward additional costs over and above that activity. We believe it is the right approach to generate that increased activity.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

The elective procedure backlog requires appropriate capacity for recovery and rehabilitation, much of which is provided by community hospitals, especially in rural areas. Is the Minister aware that on Friday, NHS Shropshire announced the imminent closure of Bishop’s Castle Community Hospital for patient safety reasons due to a lack of qualified nursing staff? Will he work with me to put pressure on the local NHS to develop a plan to recruit suitably qualified nurses and reopen the hospital as soon as possible?

[Mr Speaker]

On elective surgery.

[Edward Argar]

In the context of elective surgery recovery, my right hon. Friend makes an important point about the role that community hospitals play in helping to drive down waiting lists. I am grateful to him for drawing that to my attention and I will look into the specific situation he raised. It is important that, alongside providing a service, it is a safe service. I am happy to work with him to see what can be done in that situation.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Delays in procedures are causing increased pressure on our adult social care system. In September, East Riding of Yorkshire Council told my constituent that there was not a single carer to be had for her mum in the whole of the East Riding, and that the family’s options were to put their mum into residential care or to deal with it themselves. I spoke to those on the Conservative-led council to check whether that was true, and they said yes. They are facing a huge shortage of carers and they asked for my support in lobbying their Government for increased funding for social care. Will the Government give East Riding of Yorkshire Council the extra funding it needs to raise the wages of carers and try to attract some of them back to the profession?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight that, essentially, social care and the NHS go hand in hand; they are two sides of the same coin. That is why we have made ambitious proposals, and will bring forward further proposals, for furthering the integration of those two sides.

The hon. Lady raised a specific case to illustrate her point. I, or perhaps more appropriately the Minister for Care and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), would be happy to meet her to discuss the details of that situation.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to build new hospitals.

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. In October 2020 the Prime Minister announced details of 40 schemes that we will be taking forward in line with our manifesto commitment to deliver 40 new hospitals by 2030, supported by an initial £3.7 billion investment for them.

[Jerome Mayhew]

This seems to be the crumbling hospital corner of the House, as we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) about his concerns. In Norfolk, we have the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which is physically crumbling, and the ceilings and roofs are held up by wooden staves and acrow props. Although it is not in my constituency—it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild)—it serves the entire county, and eight Members of Parliament have written in support of the bid. Could I invite the Minister to visit the Queen Elizabeth Hospital to see for himself the state of its structure?

[Edward Argar]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who quite rightly recognises and highlights the work that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) has put into championing the cause of this hospital. I understand that it has put in an application to be one of the next eight hospitals, which will of course be considered very carefully. I am very happy to visit Norfolk as well, but I would also highlight that one of the key issues at this particular hospital is the existence of RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—planks, for which we have already provided £20 million for remedial works this year.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

As well as building new hospitals, the Government appear to be downgrading existing ones. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the downgrading of Walsall Manor, so that I can explain it to constituents and whistleblowers?

[Edward Argar]

I am always happy to meet the right hon. Lady. However, I would say to her that decisions such as that are NHS-made, clinical decisions. That is the framework through which they should be viewed, but I am always happy to meet her.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

Will the Minister agree to meet me in Hyndburn to discuss plans for Accrington Victoria Hospital, making sure we are utilising our fantastic and historic building to its full potential?

[Edward Argar]

The short answer is that it looks as though I may be going on tour in the coming months, and I am delighted to accept my hon. Friend’s kind invitation.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

With a £9 billion maintenance backlog, examples of which we have heard this morning, it is truly mind-boggling that the Department’s priority has been to try to change the definition of what a new hospital is, so let us cut out the spin on 48 new hospitals. Can the Minister tell us, of those 48—if we take out all the projects under way before the announcement was made, and those that are new wings, extensions or refurbishments of existing buildings—exactly how many new hospitals will be built by 2030? It is not 48, is it?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful, I think, to the shadow Minister. We have a very clear definition of a new hospital, which I believe is shared by the public. It also leans on VAT notice 708 and its definition of what constitutes a new build or a refurbishment. To his specific question, we are committed to our manifesto commitment of 40 new hospitals by 2030—we build, the Opposition complain.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)]

If I may, I would like to take this opportunity to remember my friend and colleague James Brokenshire, who shall be sorely missed, and I would like to dedicate this statement to my colleague Sir David Amess.

Sir David was a friend, and I had the privilege of knowing his kindness, his compassion and his selflessness at first hand. For those who did not, Sir David’s record tells them everything they need to know. His first concern was never his own rank or status, but the cause of the underdog, the vulnerable, the marginalised and the forgotten. As well as on fuel poverty and in standing up for animal welfare, Sir David left his mark on my own brief in campaigning to tackle obesity, chairing the Conservative Back-Bench health committee and launching the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis. That disease would never affect him personally, but it was raised by one of his constituents in his surgery—exactly like the one he was taking when he was killed. His legacy is the many lives that he touched, and I know that, like me, Members across the House will miss him terribly.

[Andrew Selous]

Of course I agree with every word of that very fine tribute to our two lost colleagues.

I represent an area of high housing growth so general practice provision needs to increase as the houses go up, but my clinical commissioning group tells me that NHS capital often appears at incredibly short notice and then disappears just as quickly. Can we try to get the provision of new general practices on a planned basis as the new houses go up?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this. Capital is allocated by two CCGs on a regional basis that is weighted by population, and, as he says, if that population changes, the weighting also changes. Additional funding can sometimes be allocated from section 106 or community infrastructure levy funding as well, but I am more than happy, if my hon. Friend would like, to meet him to discuss this further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Jonathan Ashworth.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

If I may, Mr Speaker, I will, with your indulgence, take a moment to express my deep sadness at the loss of James and David and my utter shock at what we saw this weekend, but also to remember David as someone who was always smiling, who always encouraged me, particularly as a rookie MP when my office was just down the corridor from his, who always asked after my children and who always gave me tips. I sometimes get in a bit of trouble for being friends with Tories, but I will hugely miss David and James and send my condolences and sympathies to their friends and families.

I also welcome the new Ministers to the Treasury Bench. In recent weeks we have seen a patient at Preston wait over 40 hours for a bed, we have seen a child with mental health problems wait nearly 48 hours for a bed at Ipswich A&E, we have seen ambulances backed up outside hospitals—in Norfolk a patient died of a heart attack waiting in the back of an ambulance—and we have seen ever more patients, who cannot bear the wait for surgery, paying for operations. This is an NHS not just under pressure, but under water. What is the Secretary of State personally going to do to avert a winter crisis of misery for patients?

[Sajid Javid]

I agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman said about our friends and colleagues, James and David, but I hope his friendship with me will not get him into trouble—I hope I have not given that away. He is right to ask about the huge pressure the NHS is facing, and all our constituents are seeing that wherever they live. It is picking up over the winter. Winters can usually be tough for the NHS but this winter will be particularly tough and the Government have set out the reasons why: the pandemic is still ongoing; and this flu season will, I think, be particularly tough, which is why we are having the largest flu vaccination programme alongside the covid programme this year. We are doing a lot alongside the vaccination programmes, especially in terms of resources. We have put an extra £34 billion into the NHS and care for this year, including much more funding for diagnostics such as the community diagnostics hubs that I announced a couple of weeks ago, in which we invested 350 million. We will very shortly set out with the NHS a detailed programme for the winter and how we can better deal with the pressures.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The Secretary of State mentioned the pandemic, but he must surely be concerned that yesterday we recorded close to 50,000 infections, and on every single day of the last three weeks 10,000 children have been diagnosed with covid. The booster programme is stalling with charities describing it as a “chaotic failure”, and only about 13% of children have been vaccinated. His wall of defence is falling down at just the point that vaccination is waning, so may I suggest that he ditches the complacency and fixes the vaccination programme now?

[Sajid Javid]

Our vaccination programme has been one of the most successful in the world, and the right hon. Gentleman may know that it has prevented 24 million infections, has prevented some 230,000 people from being hospitalised and saved 130,000 lives. I do not call that a failure; I call it a success.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

T2. Last week, a whistleblower told the American Congress that Facebook had repeatedly misled the public about the impact of its platform on children’s health. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for Facebook to be transparent about the impact of its platform, and to share with the public what it knows about the impact on children’s health?

[Sajid Javid]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank her for raising this issue. I share those concerns. Over the past year, the number of young people being urgently referred for eating disorders has doubled. In the light of that, I was astonished to learn that one of Facebook’s own internal studies, which was brought to light by Ms Haugen, found that 17% of teen girls said that their eating disorders got worse after using Instagram. Facebook did not think it was appropriate to inform parents, healthcare professionals and legislators. I do think it is time for Facebook to do the right thing and publish what it knows.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

T3. As a former Chancellor, the Health Secretary will know that air pollution kills 64,000 people a year at a cost of £20 billion a year, according to the Royal College of Physicians, and twice that according to the World Health Organisation. Will he urge the Government to ensure that there are legally binding WHO limits in the Environment Bill, which we will consider tomorrow, to save tens of thousands of lives and tens of billions of pounds, and to send a message to the world on combating the 8.7 million deaths a year from air pollution?

[Sajid Javid]

The Government have a proud record on combating air pollution. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the ongoing challenges of that, and I know that the Government, including the current Chancellor and the Environment Secretary, take it very seriously.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

T4. Will the Secretary of State please confirm whether the additional £250 million investment in primary care will be spent on additional capacity to be delivered by NHS doctors, providing a distinct break from the bureaucracy of the last Labour Government and the legacy of Tony Blair?

[Sajid Javid]

First, let me say that our GPs have done a phenomenal job during the pandemic. The nation really cannot thank them enough for what they did during the pandemic and what they continue to do. The GP access programme that I announced last week is about providing extra support for GPs to do what they love doing best, which is seeing their patients. The extra £250 million over the next five months will be ringfenced—it will be protected—and it will be there to expand general practice.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

T5. I thank the Secretary of State for his earlier response about my former constituent, Anne, but I did not detect that he mentioned the shortage of oncologists and radiologists in the health service. There is a 33% shortage of radiologists, and a 17% shortage—and growing—of oncologists. What is the commitment, not simply for this year but on an ongoing basis, to make sure that we train, train, train and have the staff who can deliver the cancer detection that is so fundamental?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. Whether it is for treatment for cancer or other illnesses, we do need more clinicians in the NHS. On meeting the ongoing demand, I was pleased to see that this year we had the highest number of students ever entering medical schools for general practice, for example, and across the board. He may be interested to know that, for the year to date, to June 2021, the NHS has 2,700 more doctors and 8,900 more nurses. There is more to do, and I am pleased that he raised this issue.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

T7. [R] My right hon. Friend will be aware of the potential emerging treatment of the most difficult mental health conditions, including depression, trauma and addiction, if psychotherapy were reinforced by pharmacology with appropriate use of the psychedelic class of drugs, including psilocybin. That could benefit millions of our fellow citizens, including more than 2,000 of our veterans wrestling with untreated trauma from their service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, it is very difficult to conduct research in the UK due to the scheduling of those drugs in the most restrictive category of all, with absolutely no evidence of risk to support that immense burden placed on science and medical research. Every day we delay this science, scores of our fellow citizens will die unnecessarily, and millions will suffer unnecessarily. Will my right hon. Friend urgently examine this issue so that British people receive British scientific research and British pharmaceutical—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Come on, Secretary of State or Minister—whoever is answering. We have to get through these questions or it is unfair to others.

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of mental health and suicide. This is important, and I listened carefully to what he said. He knows that pharmacology already plays an important role in helping people with their mental health challenges, but he raises an interesting potential emerging treatment. He will know that scheduling is an issue for the Home Office, but I will be happy to meet him myself to discuss it further.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

T6. As the Secretary of State knows, the NHS is facing extreme pressure because of rising covid infection rates and hundreds of people still dying every week, and that is in the context of 5.6 million people on NHS waiting lists. Is it not time for the Health Secretary to revert to making mask wearing mandatory and to commit to suspending the reckless decision to charge for lateral flow tests in the coming months?

[Sajid Javid]

We have a plan for both the pandemic and other challenges over the winter, which we set out in detail. I remind the hon. Lady that we do not charge for lateral flow tests.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

T8. My right hon. Friend will have seen last week’s Care Quality Commission report expressing continuing concern about maternity services in East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust hospitals, including the William Harvey Hospital in my constituency. Can Ministers offer some reassurance to mothers-to-be in east Kent that giving birth in those hospitals will be safe?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)]

I thank my right hon. Friend and I share his concerns completely. Just to reassure him, NHS England provided £1.6 million to East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust to fund an additional 38 midwives, with 26 already in post. I would be happy to keep updated with him to see what the clinical experience is on the ground.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

T9. A constituent of mine, David Brydon, suffered an horrendous accident at home, falling down the stairs and severing his spinal cord. His family were really encouraged to learn that a pioneering treatment—the ARC treatment, as it is known—is being trialled at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Glasgow. However, they were severely disappointed to learn that because he lives in England, he does not have the opportunity to access the treatment. Will the Minister meet me to see if we can come to some sort of a resolution for Mr Brydon, please?

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. This is what this House does best: raising and highlighting particular cases. I am very happy to meet him to discuss this very challenging case.

[Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)]

I would like to ask the Secretary of State about pressures in emergency care and comments that the new chief executive of NHS England made to the Health Committee this morning that we have shortages of 999 call handlers. Is he concerned about the time it is taking to answer some 999 calls? Do we have those shortages? What are his plans to address them if we do?

[Sajid Javid]

My right hon. Friend speaks with real experience, especially on tough winters for the NHS, and he highlights shortages across the NHS. He mentions 999 callers. There is a huge pressure at the moment on 111 calls as well, and emergency care generally, including ambulance services. A significant amount of support has been put in, especially over the past few months, with additional funding. We will set out a detailed plan with the NHS, coming shortly in the next couple of weeks, on exactly what more we will be doing.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Given the high covid infection rates and the risk of new variants of concern emerging that may be vaccine-resistant, what discussion has the Health Secretary had with the Chancellor on extending the contain outbreak management fund and on increasing public health budgets, which are 24% lower than they were in 2015?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady will know that in terms of the pandemic we are very focused on vaccinations, treatments and testing. She is right to raise the importance of testing and surveillance for possible new variants. That remains a priority for the Government and it is getting the support it needs from the Treasury.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

With covid case rates across my area of Kirklees still above the national average, what extra support can be given to Kirklees to help to keep deaths and hospitalisations low and to boost the booster programme in Kirklees?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the extra pressures that Kirklees is seeing. Public health officials and local council members are doing everything they can. Extra support is available—something we keep under review—but he is right to raise the importance of the booster programme. The more people who get boosted and the sooner they do so when they are eligible, the better it will be for not just them but the whole community.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Across the continent of Europe, mask wearing, ventilation in buildings and the use of green passes for events are commonplace. They also have much lower infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths, so while the Secretary of State addresses the backlog in the roll-out of vaccinations for children and of boosters, will he consider implementing the very good practice that can be seen in other countries?

[Sajid Javid]

In terms of the challenges of the pandemic and the challenges more generally over winter, the Government have set out a detailed plan. It depends very much on vaccinations, treatments, testing and surveillance, but we keep it constantly under review and, should we need to do more, there are contingencies.

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

May I add weight to what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) said earlier? I have a similar situation in my constituency at the Chalk Pit in Epsom. It is really important that we strengthen the public heath duties of the Environment Agency. Will the Secretary of State make that a priority of his discussions with his ministerial colleague?

[Sajid Javid]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Matt Hancock—sorry, Clive Betts.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I do not know how to respond to that, Mr Speaker, but I will carry on. In declaring an interest, I welcome the Government’s decision to give a third jab to people with compromised immune systems. There has, however, been confusion in the NHS about the difference between a booster jab and a third jab. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State where is the responsibility in the NHS for advising people and arranging the third jab, and what will be the time gap between getting a third jab and a booster, as opposed to the second jab and a booster?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the gaps between vaccinations, especially for different people in different groups, is a decision that the Government would be advised on by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, and as soon as we get that advice, we will always publish it and act on it. It is important that everyone comes forward who is invited for their third jab if they are immunocompromised or for their third jab as a booster jab. As he will know, not everyone who is immunocompromised can benefit from the vaccine, but he might be interested to know that we are working on procuring new treatments that will help significantly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Clive Betts—go on, Matt Hancock.

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Thanks for the warning, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the Secretary of State and the new vaccines Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup)—on the roll-out of booster jabs. Over 3 million have been administered so far. May I attempt to strengthen their hands by asking for some of the pop-up vaccination centres, such as the Brent mosque, to get going with these booster jabs so that we can make sure that people in all communities have access to these much needed boosters?

[Sajid Javid]

One of the reasons that our country has one of the most successful vaccination programmes in the world has been the efforts of my right hon. Friend, and I want to take this opportunity to thank him for that. He is right to point to the importance of access to vaccines, and making that more mobile is exactly what we are doing.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Teenage vaccination rates in this country are lagging behind other countries. The latest data shows that the equivalent of 8,000 classrooms were empty over the past two weeks due to pupil absence, and schools such as Hampton High in my constituency had 11 teachers missing yesterday yet have been advised against reintroducing masks and have been told to teach 700-plus pupils outdoors. Does the Secretary of State think that that is sensible advice and will he ramp up the vaccination of teenagers, particularly over half-term next week?

[Sajid Javid]

We are ramping it up. I can tell the hon. Lady that to make the most of half-term next week, we will be opening up the national booking service to all 12 and 15-year-olds to have their covid vaccinations in existing national vaccination centres, which will offer families more flexibility. It is important that anyone who is invited as they are eligible for a vaccination—including young people—comes forward and takes up that offer.

NatWest Crouch End and Hornsey Branch

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Net Zero Strategy and Heat and Buildings Strategy

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

12:39

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Hands)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the net zero strategy and the heat and buildings strategy—but first, if I may, I will congratulate my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary and his wife Harriet on the birth of their daughter on Friday. I can report to the House that both mother and baby are healthy and doing well, as is the Secretary of State. I am sure that the whole House will join me in offering our congratulations. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

The statement is all about future generations as well, because we know that we must act now on climate change. The activities of our economies, communities and societies are changing our environment. If we do not take action now, we will continue to see the worst effects of climate change.

We have already travelled a significant way down the path to net zero. Between 1990 and 2019, we grew our economy by 78% and cut our emissions by 44%, decarbonising faster than any other G7 country. Since 2010, the UK has quadrupled its renewable electricity generation and reduced carbon emissions in the power generation sector by some 70%. In the past year alone, we have published the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, the energy White Paper, the North sea transition deal, the industrial decarbonisation strategy, the transport decarbonisation plan, the hydrogen strategy and more. Earlier this month, we unveiled a landmark commitment to decarbonise the UK’s electricity system by 2035.

But there is still a substantial length of road to travel. We must continue to take decisive action if we are to meet our net zero goal, so today I am pleased to announce two major Government initiatives: the net zero strategy and the heat and buildings strategy. This is not just an environmental transition; it also represents an important economic change, echoing even the explosion in industry and exports in the first industrial revolution more than 250 years ago.

We will fully embrace this new, green industrial revolution, helping the UK to level up as we build back better and get to the front of the global race to go green. We need to capitalise on it to ensure that British industries and workers benefit. I can therefore announce that the strategy will support up to 440,000 jobs across sectors and across all parts of the UK in 2030. There will be more specialists in low-carbon fuels in Northern Ireland and low-carbon hydrogen in Sheffield, electric vehicle battery production in the north-east of England, engineers in Wales, green finance in London and offshore wind technicians in Scotland.

The strategy will harness the power of the private sector, giving businesses and industry the certainty they need to invest and grow in the UK and make the UK home to new, ambitious projects. The policies and spending brought forward in the strategy, along with regulations, will leverage up to £90 billion of private investment by 2030, levelling up our former industrial heartlands.

The strategy also clearly highlights the steps that the Government are taking to work with industry to bring down the costs of key technologies, from electric vehicles to heat pumps—just as we did with offshore wind, in which we are now the world leader. Those steps will give the UK a competitive edge and get us to the head of the race.

We have spoken often in this place of late about the importance of protecting consumers, and consumers are indeed at the heart of the strategy. Making green changes such as boosting the energy efficiency of our homes will help to cut the cost of bills for consumers across the UK. Switching to cleaner sources of energy will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and, again, bring down costs down the line.

This plan is also our best route to overcoming current challenges. The current price spikes in gas show the need to reduce our reliance on volatile imported fossil fuels rapidly. Although there is a role for gas as a transition fuel, moving away from imports quickly is in the best interests of bill payers. With our ambitious set of policies, the strategy sets out how we meet carbon budgets 4 and 5 and our nationally determined contribution. It puts us on the path for carbon budget 6 and ultimately on course for net zero by 2050.

We are now setting up the industrial decarbonisation and hydrogen revenue support scheme to fund these business models and enable the first commercial-scale deployment of low-carbon hydrogen production and industrial carbon capture. We have also announced the HyNet and East Coast clusters as track 1 economic hubs for green jobs.

We have previously announced that we will end the sale of all new non zero emission road vehicles from 2040, and the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030. The strategy explains that we will also introduce a zero emission vehicle mandate that will deliver on our 2030 commitment to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans.

To increase the size of our carbon sinks, we will treble the rate at which we are planting new trees in England by the end of the current Parliament. We will be a global leader in developing and deploying the green technologies of the future. The strategy announces a £1.5 billion fund to support net zero innovation projects, which provides finance for low-carbon technologies across the areas of the Prime Minister’s “Ten Point Plan”.

We have also published our heat and buildings strategy, which sets out our plans to significantly cut carbon emissions from the UK’s 30 million homes and workplaces in a simple way that remains affordable and fair for British households. We will gradually move away from fossil fuel heating and improve the energy performance of our buildings through measures such as grants of up to £5,000 towards the costs of heat pumps, a further £800 million for the social housing decarbonisation fund to upgrade social housing, and a further £950 million for a home upgrade grant scheme to improve and decarbonise low-income homes off the gas grid.

The year 2021 is a vital year for action on climate change. In just two weeks’ time, the UK Government will host the crucial United Nations COP26 conference in Glasgow. As the Prime Minister has said, it needs to be a “turning point for humanity”, the point at which we pull together—and pull our socks up—to keep 1.5 °C in reach. Hosting COP26 will also give the UK a huge opportunity to showcase our world-leading climate credentials and set an example to other countries to raise their own ambitions. The net zero strategy will take centre stage in our display, setting out our vision for a UK that is cleaner, greener, and more innovative.

Mr Speaker, we are ready for Glasgow, and I commend this statement to the House.

12:46

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and send my warmest congratulations—as I have already done directly—to the Secretary of State on the birth of his new baby.

Let me start by saying that it is good that tackling the climate crisis is a shared national objective across the House, and that we want the Government to succeed at COP26 in just ten days’ time. However, there are two central questions about the strategy that has been published today: does it finally close the yawning gap between Government promises and delivery, and will it make the public investment which is essential to ensure that the green transition is fair and creates jobs? I am afraid that the answer to both questions, despite what the Minister said, is no. The plan falls short on delivery, and while there is modest short-term investment, there is nothing like the commitment that we believe is required—and we know why. When asked at the weekend about the Treasury’s approach to these issues, a source from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said:

“They are not climate change deniers but they are emphasising the short-term risks, rather than long-term needs”.

The Chancellor’s fingerprints are all over these documents, and not in a good way.

We have waited months for the heat and buildings strategy, but it is a massive let-down. We are in the midst of an energy price crisis caused by a decade of inaction. Emissions from buildings are higher than they were in 2015. The biggest single programme that could make a difference is a 10-year house-by-house, street-by-street retrofit plan to cut bills and emissions and ensure energy security. There are 19 million homes below EPC band C, but according to the best estimates of today’s proposals, they will help just a tiny fraction of that number. Indeed, there is not even a replacement for the ill-fated green homes grant for homeowners. Can the Minister explain where the long-term retrofit plan is? Did BEIS argue for it and get turned down by the Treasury, or did he not make the case?

According to the Government’s own target, we need 600,000 homes a year to be installing heat pumps by 2028, but the Government are funding just 30,000 a year, helping just one in 250 households on the gas grid. Why does the Minister’s plan on heat pumps fall so far short of what is required? As for transport, we agree with the transition to electric cars—and I support and welcome the zero emissions mandate—but we need to make it fair to consumers. We should at the very least have had long-term zero-interest loans to cut the costs of purchasing electric cars. What is the plan to make them accessible to all, and not just the richest? Will the Minister tell us that in his reply? On nuclear, I was surprised, given the advance publicity, that the word did not even cross the Minister’s lips. We have seen a decade of inaction and delay on this issue, so can he tell us why there is still no decision on new nuclear?

The failure to invest affects not just whether this transition is fair for consumers but workers in existing industries. Take steel: it will cost £6 billion for the steel industry to get to net zero over the next 15 years. If we want a steel industry—as we do across the House—we will need to share the costs with the private sector. However, there is nothing for steel in this document, and a £250 million clean steel fund some way down the road will not cut it. Can he give us his estimates of the needs of the steel industry and how he thinks they can be met?

The same is true of investing in new industries such as hydrogen. There is a global race in these areas and I am afraid that the UK is not powering ahead but falling behind. Germany is offering €9 billion for a new hydrogen strategy; the UK is offering £240 million, and we are putting off decisions until later in the decade. We see the same pattern across the board, including on land use, industry and transport, and because of this failure to invest, there remains a chasm between promises and delivery.

Finally, it was noticeable that the Minister did not say that the plan would meet the target for the 2035 sixth carbon budget, but surely that is a basic prerequisite of the strategy to 2050. At less than halfway to net zero, do the policies in this document meet the target, or fall short of it? Despite hundreds of pages of plans, strategies and hot air, there is still a chasm between the Government’s rhetoric and the reality? My fear is that the plan will not deliver the fair, prosperous transition that we need and that is equal to the scale of the emergency we face.

[Greg Hands]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his warm words of congratulation to the Secretary of State and for his intention to join us in showing real leadership. I agree with him that this should not be a particularly partisan matter. The UK as a whole country expects to see our politicians working together, particularly in the run-up to our hosting the vital COP26. I will deal with his various points in turn.

On power, it is worth pointing out the success that we have had on renewables. The right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change up to 2010. When he left office, renewables were only about 10% of our power mix; now the figure is around 43%. Offshore wind costs have come down by two thirds. He mentioned nuclear, but I am just about old enough to remember the 1997 new Labour manifesto, which stated that there would be no new nuclear projects. It took Labour 10 years to do anything at all on nuclear.

The right hon. Gentleman called our investment in heat and buildings a modest one, but it is £4 billion. The difference between us is that we want to go with the natural choices that families make and to work with businesses, finding the natural point at which a homeowner needs to replace his or her boiler and to incentivise the take-up of a greener choice. He says that the £450 million investment is somehow inadequate, but I think that it will kick-start demand. Octopus Energy and others have said overnight that they think that they can make heat pumps at an equivalent cost to natural gas boilers by April 2022. I have confidence in the ability of British industry and British energy companies to innovate.

On energy-intensive industries, we have our £350 million industry energy transformation fund and we are speaking continually with the sector. We will keep the House informed on that. On nuclear, I have said that new money has been announced. There is the £120 million future nuclear enabling fund for optionality for future advanced modular reactors. Of course we are sticking to our commitment for a final investment decision on a further nuclear power station to be taken in this Parliament.

On hydrogen, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the German Government have done good work, through my good friend Peter Altmaier, the German industry and trade Minister, but the UK also has a world-leading hydrogen strategy, which was launched in August. We are aiming for 5 GW of low-carbon hydrogen generation capacity by the year 2030.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s final comment about 2030, our commitment is unchanged, but let us look at his commitment for a moment. [Hon. Members: “It was 2035.”] His leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), backed a 2019 manifesto commitment to go to net zero by 2030. Such a commitment would cripple the hard-won economic growth that we have achieved over the past 30 years through our steady approach of growing the economy and reducing emissions at the same time. Even the GMB has said:

“Nobody thinks 2030 is a remotely achievable deadline.”

The CBI has said that there is no credible plan to achieving net zero by 2030. This Government have the right ambition. This is a transition, and it is full of opportunities for jobs and low and zero carbon growth across the UK. The right hon. Gentleman should be backing it in full in the lead-up to Glasgow.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

If heat pumps and electric cars are going to help, we will need to generate all our electricity from green sources, so when will the Government commission the very large amounts of new generating capacity we will need to make them work when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine?

[Greg Hands]

I thank my right hon. Friend for, as always, putting his question very directly, which I have appreciated over many years in the House. I have mentioned our commitment to nuclear and our commitment to the gas sector as a transition fuel. Fortunately, at the moment, we are dependent largely on domestic gas production, in that 50% of our gas usage comes from the UK continental shelf while 30% comes from Norway. The point here is to ramp up our commitment to low and zero carbon fuels. That makes sense for the environment, for our economic security and for our diversification.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The key point in the announcement today is the fact that Peterhead has once again been betrayed. All along, warm words have been paid to the Scottish cluster, but we have been stabbed in the back again. Classing the Scottish cluster as a reserve is an even bigger insult. What representations has the Minister had from the Scottish Secretary of State about what is happening to Peterhead? Can he also confirm that this is a political decision rather than a technical one, given that the Scottish cluster ticks all the boxes and would have contributed to the hydrogen production target?

The Minister keeps going on about nuclear, but the reality is that, at £23 billion, Hinkley is the most expensive power station in the world. Its strike rate is £92.50 per megawatt-hour, compared with offshore wind at less than £40 per megawatt-hour. What is the capital cost in billions of pounds that the Government are willing to commit to, given that it could be better spent elsewhere? What funding is coming to Scotland on the back of the announcement of the social housing decarbonisation fund and the home upgrade grant schemes?

If we look at Scotland in the round, we see that it has contributed £350 billion in oil and gas revenues over the years. Where is the UK Government’s match funding for the £500 million just transition fund that the Scottish Government have committed to the north-east of Scotland? The Minister talks about levelling up, but his levelling up does not include Scotland. We have the highest electricity grid charges in Europe, which puts renewable energy in Scotland at risk, as it is 20% more expensive than in the south-east of England. That also affects the UK’s net zero trajectory. Scottish energy consumers are now made to pay for their nuclear, which we do not want, and Peterhead has been sacrificed for the red wall constituencies. When it comes to Scotland, the UK Government are not helping us tackle climate change but are instead adopting a scorched earth policy as we head towards independence.

[Greg Hands]

I spent significant time in Aberdeen last week, and I did not meet a lot of people who share the hon. Gentleman’s doom and gloom approach to all things when it comes to energy. I had meetings with Oil & Gas UK, Robert Gordon University, Harbour Energy, CHC Helicopter and Jim Milne of Balmoral Group, and I found a region and a city that are enthusiastic about the energy transition and our North sea transition deal.

I have already mentioned nuclear and the new funding that is available, and I am disappointed that the SNP remains resolutely anti-nuclear, which I think it will regret. I think the Scottish people do not agree with the SNP.

Today’s announcement on carbon clusters is for track 1, and it is not the end of the story—far from it. We have always been clear that we will have two industrial clusters by the mid-2020s, and four by 2030 at the latest. We have announced the Acorn cluster as a reserve. It met the eligibility criteria and performed to a good standard against the evaluation criteria, and we will continue to engage with it throughout phase 2 of the sequencing process to ensure it can continue its development and planning. We remain committed to track 2. This morning the Carbon Capture and Storage Association welcomed today’s announcement as “amazing news” for carbon capture and storage.

The hon. Gentleman asked about home grants. Of course, a lot of these policy areas are devolved. He might have a word with his SNP colleagues in Edinburgh and perhaps get them to participate, as they will get Barnett consequentials. Ironically, the heat pumps scheme for England and Wales will be administered by Ofgem out of its office in Glasgow. Those administering the scheme will not be eligible for it themselves unless the Scottish Government take action to match what the UK Government have said.

Finally, on the North sea transition, energy in Scotland and the move to net zero, I urge the hon. Gentleman for once to take a more positive approach and get with us, particularly as we prepare to host the world in Glasgow in just two weeks’ time.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

Levelling up is very important, and it means all parts of the country, including rural areas, having the ability to become net zero. In constituencies like mine, many homes are not capable of being brought up to very high levels of energy efficiency and are not on the gas grid. What is the solution to make sure owners of those homes, who are perhaps not on the highest of incomes, can decarbonise their heat at an affordable price?

[Greg Hands]

My right hon. Friend is right to highlight off-grid properties and the importance of making sure that the overall Government agenda, including levelling up, reaches those people. On top of my announcement, we have already committed £2.5 billion to off-grid properties through the home upgrade grant and will explore extending it to 2030.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving me an advance copy of his statement this morning.

People across the country will want to know whether the promises made today will actually be delivered or whether they will, once again, result in failure. Will the Minister set out how the voucher schemes announced today will be delivered differently from the failed schemes of the past, such as the green homes grant?

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question with a rather unreasonable preamble, if he does not mind my saying so. I do not think there have been failures of Government policy in this area. Actually, our overall record—not just this Government’s record but the record of the country as a whole over the past 30 years in reducing emissions while achieving economic growth—is one of success.

Of course we are learning from previous schemes, and we are making sure that this new scheme goes with the flow and is simpler and easier to administer. We will also make sure that the parameters are set very clearly in the lead-up to the launch next April.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s support for the HyNet cluster, which is a huge vote of confidence in north-west businesses. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this announcement will put the north-west and the UK at the cutting edge of hydrogen technology and will help to secure thousands of jobs in the north-west, including in Warrington?

[Greg Hands]

I concur with my hon. Friend, who is a tireless champion for his Warrington constituents. We are delighted with today’s announcement. Carbon capture, utilisation and storage is a huge opportunity for the UK. When I talk to the industry, it makes strong points about how the UK is geologically, geographically and economically well suited to make sure that carbon capture, utilisation and storage is a big part of our low-carbon future, and I commend him for his support for the HyNet cluster in the north-west of England and across into north Wales.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

There are two problems with the Government’s net zero strategy: “net” and “zero”. The latter because it is not zero—we know there are sectors, such as aviation, that will be pumping out millions of tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere beyond 2050—and the former because we know the Government are relying on negative emissions technologies that, frankly, are based on science fiction and for which there is no prospect of mass roll-out. We are banking on this to rescue us from the climate crisis, but it is a “burn now, pay later” strategy that is not fit for purpose.

[Greg Hands]

That is sort of a question, for which I thank the hon. Gentleman. He might be a proponent of the Labour party’s net zero by 2030 policy. I am not sure whether the shadow Secretary of State supports that policy, which I think was ratified at the Labour party conference.

We have already talked about carbon capture, utilisation and storage, which is a sound technology in which the UK will look to be a world leader. The Climate Change Committee itself has said that it will not be possible for every single part of the UK economy to be net zero. That is the importance of the word “net” in all of this. It is about making sure that we get to net zero by 2050, so it does not have to apply across all sectors. Of course we want it to apply across all sectors, and the North Sea transition deal for the oil and gas sector has a commitment to go to net zero, but overall it is about making sure the country gets to net zero by 2050.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on today’s announcement. We will be celebrating the decision to increase the home upgrade grant and, of course, the excellent decision to make the east coast cluster one of the two carbon capture projects in the initial stage. Does he agree that we must make sure that, following the success of our offshore wind deployment, we build industrial capability in carbon capture and storage and in hydrogen so that we can be an export superpower in these areas over the years ahead?

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend and I spent many happy, productive years working together in the Department for International Trade to market our technological breakthroughs in clean energy, particularly in offshore wind. He makes an extremely strong point about CCUS. When I talk to people in the sector, one of the points they make most frequently is about the UK’s ability to be an early mover, to get in quickly and to take advantage of export capabilities. I completely agree and commend my hon. Friend for the work he did over quite some time as our exports Minister.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The steel industry’s transition to net zero requires £6 billion of investment, yet the clean steel fund provides only 4% of that. Does the Minister really think that is enough?

[Greg Hands]

We are in constant dialogue with the steel sector, and the hon. Gentleman and I both know that half of steel production and half the jobs in the sector were lost under the last Labour Government. Steel has been facing worldwide pressure for some years, but we are strongly supportive of the UK steel sector. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who now has responsibility for steel, frequently engage with the sector. We continually speak to the sector and will keep the House informed. Personally, I think our £350 million industrial energy transformation fund is a considerable commitment to the sector.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

I welcome the steps set out by my right hon. Friend to unleash the potential of our whole country. Can he reassure my Ynys Môn constituents that they will benefit from the 440,000 net zero jobs being created by 2030 and the £90 billion of private investment? Will he accept my invitation to visit Wylfa Newydd and see at first hand why the Prime Minister is such a fervent supporter?

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a tireless advocate for Ynys Môn, particularly on the economy and jobs. Of course, Ynys Môn, the whole of Wales and north Wales will benefit from the new green jobs that this net zero strategy will help to foster. The new money announced today for the future nuclear enabling fund is for optionality for the future, so that we can make future decisions based on good information on nuclear. Obviously, that includes potential for sites such as Wylfa.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

The Minister talks, in effect, of crumbs for Scotland, the renewable energy capital of Europe, with a few jobs as technicians offshore, whereas my constituency is the fourth most impacted by the cuts to working tax credit and universal credit. We can couple that with the escalation of fuel prices, so I want to know: why do the UK Government insist on levying connection charges not to France or the Nordic countries, but uniquely to Scotland, driving away investment, jobs and ambitions for our green future and for an end to fuel poverty in Scotland?

[Greg Hands]

I did not quite understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about connectivity, but what I will say to him is this: Scotland is vital for the UK’s energy needs, both currently and in the future. On oil and gas, 50% of the gas currently consumed in this country comes from the UK continental shelf, and Scotland is vital for that. It is also vital for our future offshore wind capabilities, and other low-carbon and renewable energies. That is exactly the technology, capability and capacity that I saw last week in Aberdeen. Perhaps he might get a little more optimistic about Scotland’s future when it comes to energy, because I certainly am.

[Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the Government’s commitment to helping all industrial clusters to decarbonise as we transition to net zero by 2050. As an energy-intensive sector, the decarbonisation of the ceramics industry will play a crucial role in this transition, which is why I am delighted to back the British Ceramic Confederation’s plans for a virtual ceramics sustainability hub, based in Stoke-on-Trent, to develop new decarbonisation technology, including carbon capture and storage. Does the Minister agree that Government support is vital to help the ceramic industry decarbonise by 2050? Will he meet me and other Stoke colleagues to discuss these ambitious plans for the creation of a virtual ceramics sustainability hub?

[Greg Hands]

I am always ready to meet our three brilliant Conservative Members of Parliament for Stoke. I have met them over the years on a host of different topics, often in relation to ceramics and with the BCC. I remind my hon. Friend about the £350 million industry energy transformation fund and the fact that we will be in continuous dialogue with the three MPs and with the sector, and of course I would be very happy to meet her and her colleagues.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Once again, we hear warm words, big headlines and big figures from the Government, but too little detail, as the Public Accounts Committee has repeatedly highlighted. So I hope the Minister will make sure that there are repeated and meaningful reports to Parliament on these figures, good or bad, so that we can keep a track on this. Will he also look at the issue of people’s behaviour? As others have highlighted, there is a challenge on not just the money but the hassle factor, for example, in greening homes that are very challenging to insulate. How is the Department looking at that? Will he commit to do so?

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Lady asks a set of very reasonable questions. First, I commend her for saying that the Government have announced big figures, because her Front-Bench colleague, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), seemed to think they were very small figures. I agree with her that these are very, very big figures of Government money being committed.

The hon. Lady asked a reasonable question on people’s behaviour. Of course we want to make things as straightforward, simple and transparent for consumers as possible. We want people to be making the change—to be incentivised—and the Government are putting in the financial incentives. We want people to feel incentivised to make the right choices. That can be something as simple as making the scheme straightforward and easy to understand. That is where we will be moving on the replacement boiler programme, making sure that it is as easy as possible for people to understand when it starts next April.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

The cost-effectiveness of heat pumps is critically dependent on the cost of electricity, and there is good reason to think that the overall of cost of renewables to the bill payer is still extremely high, including subsidies. So will the Minister subject his assumptions on his heat pump strategy to a comprehensive audit of the price of renewable electricity?

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend is tireless in his ability and desire to get to the bottom of what lies behind Government figures. Perhaps I might commit to meet him, as, having taken on this brief four weeks ago, I know he takes a strong interest in all aspects of energy and climate change. Perhaps I might agree to meet him to discuss his concerns first, before committing to a new, huge audit of anything.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s setting an end date for the use of gas boilers, but of course switching to electricity for heating our homes makes sense only if the electricity used is not derived from fossil fuels. Because of the Lib Dems in government, the renewables sector has made big strides, but it is by no means accelerating in the way it should be. So will the Government take the opportunity before COP26 to announce an end date for using fossil fuels in the production of electricity?

[Greg Hands]

We already have, as I mentioned in the statement, our commitment to a decarbonisation of our electricity system by 2035. However, may I take issue with her about renewables because we have had a massive amount of success, particularly since 2015? The cost of offshore wind, for example, has been reduced by two thirds since 2015, when there was a sole Conservative Government. We also have the commitment to have a really big increase in renewables. We currently have the world’s largest installed offshore wind capacity, at about 10 GW. We are committed to not resting on our laurels and to quadrupling that capacity in the next 10 years, to 40 GW.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

The UK Government should be roundly applauded: we continue to be one of the nations in the world that decarbonises at one of the fastest rates, as my right hon. Friend has said. Operational carbon is just one of the pieces of the jigsaw, as is embodied carbon. What assessment has he made of regulating embodied carbon in the construction sector?

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend makes a good point on the importance of the construction sector. Obviously, there has to be a read-across between Government policies, our commitment to infrastructure, our commitment to new homes and so on. So I will happily meet him to discuss the construction sector and its carbon footprint. On decarbonising the fastest in the G7, I thank him for his words of support. This has been a huge UK success story, particularly over the past 30 years. In the first half of my adult life, we have done really well as a country overall. I recall that in 1989 the Green party ran on a manifesto that said we could take action on global warming only if we either froze or reduced the size of the economy. This country, with its 78% increase in the size of the economy, while reducing emissions by 44% in the first half of my adult life, has shown the world the way forward to reaching net zero at the end of—well, I hope not at the end of the second half of my adult life, but in the second half of my adult life to come.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

There are about a quarter of a million homes in Leeds with gas boilers. I have many constituents, as all Members have, who are struggling to pay the gas bill at the moment, let alone face the prospect of paying between £6,000 and £15,000 for a new heat pump, notwithstanding the grants that the Minister has announced today or the hope, which we all share, that the cost of heat pumps will fall. What is the Government’s plan for ensuring that all households in our communities are able to make the transition to a zero-carbon future, which we know must happen?

[Greg Hands]

We remain absolutely committed to our existing target of 600,000 homes per annum having a heat pump by 2028, and the scheme announced today shows that direction of travel. We are not saying that the scheme will provide a heat pump for every house; it will kick-start the market. We have already seen really positive reactions. I mentioned the reaction of, among others in the sector, Octopus Energy, which said overnight that it thinks it can deliver an equivalent price—we will watch such commitments closely—by as early as April next year. That is where the opportunity lies for the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine: not in the Government’s coming along and replacing everybody’s gas boiler, but by the Government’s sending a signal to kick-start the market and show that we want the private sector to respond positively.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Rugby is at the heart of National Grid’s gas pipeline network, which runs across the country from one side to the other. In the summer, I visited National Grid’s Churchover site, which is a substantial national asset. We know that harmful emissions from gas can be reduced in the short term by putting hydrogen up to 20% in the existing natural gas network, and in the longer term we can move to 100% hydrogen. Will the Minister confirm that, although we hear about stopping the installation of gas boilers, a substantial future for gas in our energy supply remains?

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course, gas has a substantial future in our energy supply, certainly in the short term. Currently, 50% of our gas comes from the UK continental shelf, so it is very important for us, notwithstanding high international wholesale gas prices. The Climate Change Committee has itself said that it is not inconsistent with net zero for there to be a contribution from the oil and gas sector, even in 2050. It is now a question of working with the sector, which is why we have done the North sea transition deal. We are working with the industry, in partnership with the Oil and Gas Authority, to make sure that we make the necessary transformation. A lot of the skills in the oil and gas sector are transferable to, for example, offshore wind.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on CCUS, I am delighted by today’s announcement that the Tees, along with our Humber colleagues, will lead the way on CCUS and hydrogen production. In the past, we have had several false starts, with the Government withdrawing funding, so I hope we get it over the line this time. How will the Minister ensure that Teesside workers will get the jobs and skills to develop the new industries and that the people of Teesside get a real dividend?

[Greg Hands]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s warm congratulation on that decision. Perhaps he might have a word with some of his colleagues near him on the Opposition Benches. He makes a good point about Teesside. We will work closely with Teesside Members of Parliament and with the Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, with whom I had an excellent conversation on this subject just a couple of weeks ago, to make sure that the skills base in Teesside improves and continues to be trained to make sure that it can continue to meet the challenges of the low-carbon future. When I was up in Hartlepool in Teesside just a few weeks ago, I was incredibly impressed to see the new investment in, for example, cabling by an offshore wind company. That company was adamant that there were good skills there, but we must keep working to improve those skills as we go forward.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

rose—

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call David Duguid.

[Derek Thomas]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the strategy itself, which says that 80% of fossil-fuel-heated off-grid homes could accommodate a low-temperature heating system. The potential to develop the most fuel-poor homes, many of which are in my constituency, is enormous. The Minister is right to mention the development and affordability of heating units themselves as things progress, but to fit such a unit, a person needs to insulate their home well and increase the size of their radiators. They may even need to increase the supply of energy to their home, as I found out in my own case. Will the Minister give careful thought to the up-front cost of fitting such a unit for a fuel-poor home, and all the other costs that make a home the home that people deserve?

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend makes some excellent points. I spent part of my childhood in Cornwall and I thought that where I lived then was pretty far from here, but his constituency is yet further, so I know some of the challenges that face his St Ives constituents. We want to keep the scheme as simple, straightforward, transparent and easy-to-understand as possible, but my hon. Friend’s points about insulation and energy efficiency in homes are well met. I will continue to talk with him and other Cornish MPs, and with MPs from other parts of the country, as we move forward.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The north-east of Scotland is the home of the offshore industry and the obvious location for a carbon-capture project. Years ago, the Tories pulled the plug on the carbon capture and storage competitions before Peterhead won through, and it is now clear that the UK Government have put the holding of seats in the red wall of northern England ahead of saving jobs in Aberdeen and the north-east. How can the Government say they are delivering a just transition if the Tories put pork barrel politics ahead of supporting the ideal location for CCUS at St Fergus?

[Greg Hands]

I get tired of the politics of division that we hear from the SNP all the time. It is the politics of pitting Scotland against, in this case, the north of England. We are a Government for the whole United Kingdom and I bitterly regret the hon. Lady’s language and her accusation that we have somehow put the north of England in a privileged position relative to other parts of the UK. We have been clear that in track 1 there will be at least two industrial clusters by the mid-2020s and four by 2030 at the latest. We have the Acorn cluster as a reserve. As I said earlier, it met the eligibility criteria and performed to a good standard. We will continue to engage with the sector so that it can continue its development and planning.

[Mr Speaker]

I have Derek Thomas next, so it must be David Duguid.

[David Duguid]

On behalf of Cornwall—no, I rise to speak on behalf of my constituency of Banff and Buchan, to which I shall turn in a moment. First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his visit last week to Aberdeen, where he expressed the Government’s ongoing and continuous support for the oil and gas sector and its valuable role in the energy transition to net zero. The North sea transition deal includes carbon capture and storage; far be it from me to correct the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), but the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) got it right: it is St Fergus, not Peterhead. Is it not entirely predictable from SNP Members? They have been practising their script since before the bids even came in—they gleefully declare betrayal.

Given the fact that the Government have already expended £31 million in the Scottish cluster, will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the Government’s plans to help the Scottish cluster to develop and plan not only as a reserve but certainly for the next track of negotiations?

[Greg Hands]

I will of course meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. I thank him for taking a strong interest in my visit to Aberdeen last week. He is right that the oil and gas sector is in transition, welcomes the North sea transition deal and wants to work closely with the Government, the OGA, Oil & Gas UK and so on in continuing to make a massive contribution to Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom.

On carbon capture, utilisation and storage, this is not the end of the story, as I said. We need to make a decision and make progress, but Acorn is the first reserve. If Members look at the rest of our policy, they will see that there is potential to expand our commitment yet further in advance of 2030.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

The delivery of a target of 600,000 new heat pumps by 2028 requires significant resource; otherwise, only the very well-off will be able to afford the cost of both the heat pump and the additional insulation that most homes would need to make the pumps cost-effective. As the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) said, many homes will need additional power supplies. Will the Government therefore extend their ambition and link the programme for adequate insulation with adequate funding for heat pumps, such that more people than just the very well-off will be able to deliver the changes according to the Government’s strategy?

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Lady underestimates our commitment, because it is not 600,000 new heat pumps, but 600,000 new heat pumps per annum by 2028. This is a huge commitment, but it is a commitment that is best met largely by the private sector. That is why we strongly believe that the announcement that we made today on the grants of up to £5,000 will kickstart the private sector in providing these heat pumps. I have already pointed overnight to the welcome of this announcement by the energy companies, which think that they can get the price of those heat pumps down. That is the right strategy, rather than having the Government pay for everything to meet that commitment. I think it is about working with the private sector. The ball is now partly in the energy companies’ court to see whether they can get the price of those heat pumps down.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Many people in villages in North West Norfolk live in poorly insulated homes. Can my right hon. Friend ensure that the home upgrade scheme and other schemes in this strategy help my rural constituents to live in warmer, more efficient homes?

[Greg Hands]

The comments that I made in relation to Cornwall earlier probably also apply to parts of north Norfolk. Of course I will commit to making sure that households that are in fuel poverty and that have poor insulation, including those in remote areas, will get the support that they need and deserve.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Many of us on the Labour Benches, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), have been articulating the case for carbon capture, usage and storage for many years. Despite the shortcomings of the statement, including any clarity on whether the net zero strategy will meet the 2035 sixth carbon budget, the east coast cluster announcement is most welcome. Will the Minister ensure that the collective voice of working people, through their trade unions, is heard, and that all stakeholders, including Ben Houchen, the mayor, part company with the anti-trade union rhetoric and work in an inclusive and co-operative manner to ensure that the economic and employment opportunities are fully delivered for working people in my Middlesbrough constituency and across Teesside?

[Greg Hands]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on working with workforces. The commitment to net zero is a huge, country-wide endeavour and we must carry everybody with us. May I perhaps suggest that he has a word with the trade unions, because they have been extremely critical of Labour’s official policy, which is to get to net zero by 2030? As I have mentioned, the GMB has said that nobody thinks that 2030 is a “remotely achievable deadline”. Another said that it would be a huge upheaval, leading to job losses in the industry. I agree with what he has to say, but perhaps he might have a word with those on his Front Bench as well.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The transition to net zero emboldens politicians to use ambitious rhetoric, but they cross their fingers that the reality of implementation will be as planned. That is because, as my right hon. Friend knows, he is dealing with tremendous amounts of uncertainty over the fact that chosen technologies may not work or may be superseded, that anticipated unit cost reductions may not be achieved and that the first-mover advantage may result in heavy costs but illusory or temporary sources of competitive advantage. Can he advise me on what his Department is doing to calibrate correctly the extent of the use of taxpayers’ money, the extent of additional levies on business and the extent of additional burdens on householders in the achievement of his strategy?

[Greg Hands]

Mr Speaker, as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, you can imagine that I take a strong and ongoing interest in exactly that sort of question. We at BEIS have those discussions with the Treasury and the whole of Government all of the time to make sure that the plan here is both achievable and affordable and that it will be realised to enable us to meet all of those targets that we have set ourselves. I am looking forward to interacting with my hon. Friend on any specific concerns that he may have going forward, but his question and his points are the sorts of things that are very much on our minds.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Obviously, £450 million for heat pumps across England and Wales is a good thing, but it is set to benefit only 0.3% of Welsh households, while the future generations commissioner calculates that the cost of decarbonising Wales’s housing stock stands at £14.75 billion. The Treasury has resisted every step on the road to COP26. Our economy, our environment and our communities need Treasury funding to step up to the mark to lead the transformational investment. That will give the private sector confidence. How confident is the Minister that this news will reach us within the next 10 days?

[Greg Hands]

A very substantial amount of Government money is going into the heat and building strategy—I think it is in the region of £4 billion. I will correct the right hon. Lady. On this heat pump scheme that we have introduced, the idea is that it kickstarts the market and gets the private sector providing solutions. We have already seen a really good response to our signals from the private sector. That is exactly right, because the solutions to issues such as home heating will lie principally with the private sector.

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

Further to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) earlier, the ceramics sector in Stoke-on-Trent has faced significant energy price volatility recently. It does want to transition, but it cannot do so on its own while continuing to be competitive internationally. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we have our fair share of the additional R&D money that this Government are committed to investing in the UK?

[Greg Hands]

I am absolutely committed to that. My BEIS colleagues who look after research and development are absolutely committed to making sure that British ceramics are not sold short when it comes to R&D. We have a huge commitment to the sector overall, which my hon. Friend will know from the many years that we have worked together, particularly on trade issues as they affect the ceramics sector, including trying to break down trade barriers to make sure not only that our industry flourishes here in the UK, but that our exports do as well. I commend the work that he and all of the Stoke Conservative MPs have been doing for the sector for some years now.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Missing from the plan is the retrofit skills strategy. The City of York Council has a backlog of more than 6,000 maintenance and retrofit jobs to do. How does the Minister expect those skills to come forward and how will people be trained? Why has he left it so late to upskill the workforce?

[Greg Hands]

I agree with some of the points that the hon. Lady makes about the importance of skills, but I do not think that it is about our delivering the message late. This Government’s commitment to skills and to reskilling if necessary has been absolutely clear. It can be seen right the way across Government in the very close work being done together by BEIS and the Department for Education. I see it in so many sectors. I will mention again my visit to Aberdeen last week. I appreciate that Aberdeen is some distance from her constituency, but the sector there has to be able to reskill a lot of people from offshore oil and gas to offshore wind. It is that kind of thing that we need to see on a transition and a long-term basis. It is exactly this idea of making sure that we can retrain and reclassify people from today’s skills to fit the skills for tomorrow. That is absolutely part of our commitment.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

The Minister talks about ending the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030. To do so, we will need drivers to switch to zero-emission vehicles over the next decade. Despite the upfront costs of electric cars still being significantly higher, the financial incentives to switch continue to be diluted. I welcome the shadow Secretary of State’s support for the SNP Scottish Government’s interest-free loan scheme for new and used zero-emission cars, but the Government’s zero-emission vehicle mandate will not even be legislated on until 2024. Nearly half the decade will be behind us when the mandate comes in. Why are the Government moving this policy forward in first gear?

[Greg Hands]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The transport section in the net zero strategy is very comprehensive on this and very extensive on how we get more people to switch to electric vehicles. In terms of some of the details, I invite him to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who leads on this at the next Transport questions.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The other week, Lord Deben, the chair of the Climate Change Committee, speaking at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, indicated that, if we are to hit the Committee’s targets, local government has an incredibly important role to play in the retrofitting of existing homes, the building of new homes, local planning policies and local transport policies. Is it therefore not disappointing that there is not one single mention of the role of local government in the Minister’s announcement today? What has the Minister to say about that?

[Greg Hands]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the annex of the net zero strategy, which sets out in some detail our response to Lord Deben’s annual report earlier this year. I think he will find in the annex a lot of the good mentions of local government for which he has been looking.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The zero-emissions vehicle mandate is welcome, although, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) said, the Government do need to get a move on. They have been cutting plug-in grants year on year, and there are now reports that the Chancellor wants to axe them all together. What in this strategy will actually help to make the purchase of electric vehicles more affordable for the average consumer?

[Greg Hands]

Nobody should doubt the Government’s commitment to getting a switch to electric vehicles. I certainly hope that the shadow Secretary of State has been taking an interest in that in recent times—

[Edward Miliband]

indicated assent.

[Greg Hands]

He is nodding in the affirmative, so that is one more.

Like the overall commitment, this commitment is very much on an ongoing basis. I refer the hon. Lady to the transport section of the net zero strategy and to the annex regarding the Climate Change Committee’s report.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

The Minister says that he wants to work collaboratively, yet he did not reach out to the Welsh Labour Government or share plans, despite saying that he was going to. Of course, plans on net zero are welcome, but this is greenwash wrapped up with a great big green bow. Only the most well off will benefit from the heat pumps, and the Government have not made clear the new measures that householders will also need, including insulation, water storage and new radiators. The Government are also still building truly awful, inefficient homes. When are they going to step up and really take the action needed to meet the zero carbon commitment?

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Lady has packed a lot into that question, but let me come back to her with two points. First of all, we have shared an advance copy of the plans with the Welsh Government and I spoke to the Welsh Government Minister yesterday on this very topic.

Secondly, the hon. Lady says that only the well off will benefit. Our target is 600,000 homes per annum; that will reach down very far into the homes in this country. I am absolutely confident of that, particularly given the commitments being made by different energy companies to make heat pumps cheaper. I mentioned earlier the commitment from one company overnight to make a heat pump of equivalent price to a gas boiler. That gives rise to good optimism about the affordability of this new technology.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

That we move to warm homes fuelled by heat pumps is welcome, but warm words are not enough. What guarantee can the Minister provide that the Government will use taxpayers’ money to invest in heat pumps made in Britain, creating jobs here in Britain and supporting British business?

[Greg Hands]

Part of this announcement is of taxpayers’ money exactly for this sector. My understanding is that the UK is a real leader in heat pump technology, but if the hon. Gentleman wants me to commit to us becoming a sort of protectionist nirvana for the future of the UK in the sector—absolutely not. We need to ensure that we are an open market; we need to be exporting our technology. Earlier, a lot of my colleagues asked about export opportunities. It is difficult to have export opportunities if we are closing down imports at the same time. Yes, there is key British technology in the sector. We need to ensure that it is affordable for consumers, and that we take advantage of export opportunities for a lot of that key technology.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I expected to hear more in the Minister’s statement about partnership with local government. Local authorities up and down the country are trying to innovate and to pilot schemes to decarbonise homes. My own local authority is investigating the possibility of using green open space to have a district ground source heat pump scheme that would engage with private homes in the area; that is engaging with the private sector as well. Without local government, the Minister’s strategy is not going to work, so what is he going to do further to engage local government?

[Greg Hands]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s approach. As I said earlier, this strategy is going to need all of us—central Government, our key city and regional Mayors, the devolved Administrations, businesses, local government and others—to work together to get to net zero. I would be delighted to work with the local government sector. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for local government—the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—takes a keen interest in this agenda. I am sure that we will work together to ensure that local government plays an important and crucial role in getting to net zero by 2050.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister knows that steel made in Wales and the rest of the UK is half as carbon-intensive as undercutting steel from China. Moreover, our carbon footprint, although low on production at 4.8 tonnes per person is a much bigger 8 tonnes on consumption, because we now subcontract a lot of our manufacturing. Will he look carefully at pursuing a carbon border tax, so that we can play on an even playing field, support local jobs in manufacturing and steel, and help to tackle climate change? Will he announce and suggest that at COP26?

[Greg Hands]

The chair designate of COP26 says that carbon border adjustment mechanisms will not be part of the discussions at COP26, but the UK is closely watching that debate. We are looking at the European Union proposals. Of course, we need to ensure that they are World Trade Organisation-compatible and that they do not discriminate against the developing world, particularly much less developed countries. The CBAMs debate is very much alive and we continue to study it very closely indeed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his announcement and his clear commitment to all regions of the United Kingdom, particularly to Northern Ireland. I welcome the strategy and the decision to end the sale of gas boilers by 2035. What incentives can the Minister offer to builders currently developing to make those changes to new builds now, not to wait until 2034 to change that skills base and ability? Is upskilling part of the Government’s agenda?

[Greg Hands]

Upskilling is very much part of the Government’s agenda. On how the heat pump ready programme will be operating, if I understand it correctly, that is a Northern Ireland-only scheme, but we have seen that scheme in operation and it will help to inform the England and Wales scheme. The scheme will also support the Government’s target of 600,000 installations a year by 2028, which also covers Northern Ireland.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

In 2015, the UK Government pulled the plug on £1 billion of carbon capture and storage investment in Peterhead. Today, they have repeated that same mistake—a betrayal of the north-east of Scotland—by pulling the rug out from underneath the Acorn Project. The Minister knows that Scotland cannot meet its net zero ambitions without carbon capture and underground storage, so why is he shafting Scotland?

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Gentleman might have been here at the beginning of the statement; if a Member wishes to participate in a statement, it is common practice to be here at the start. As he was not here at the beginning, he missed me explaining the basis behind the decision. Government policy has always been clear that there would be two industrial clusters by the mid-2020s, but four by 2030 at the latest. We have announced the Acorn cluster as a reserve. I praise the scheme for meeting the eligibility criteria. It also performed to a good standard against the evaluation criteria. We remain absolutely committed to track 2.

[Stephen Flynn]

Shame on you.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for answering questions for over an hour. I do not like the words that you used, Mr Flynn. We have talked about a kinder, gentler politics, and that certainly was not it.

Point of Order

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

13:49

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. For many months, we have awaited three key climate strategies that were promised before COP26: the heat and building strategy, the net zero strategy, and the final Treasury net zero review. The statement that has just concluded covered two of those strategies but did not, in any way, touch on the third—namely, the Treasury net zero review. Have you had an explanation as to why the Treasury net zero review was not covered in the statement and whether there will be a statement from a Treasury Minister in due course so that Members can properly interrogate and ask questions about it?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank you, Mr Pennycook, for your point of order and for giving forward notice of it. Mr Speaker frequently and firmly asserts the duty of the Government to make important announcements to this House first. I am not aware of the announcement that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but know that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard that and will, I am sure, take it forward.

Bills Presented

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

Company Transparency (Carbon in Supply Chains) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Karen Bradley presented a Bill to require companies to prepare an annual statement on carbon in their supply chains; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 169).

Devolution (Employment) (Scotland)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Gavin Newlands presented a Bill to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to grant legislative competence for employment matters to the Scottish Parliament.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 170).

Bereavement Leave and Pay (Stillborn and Miscarried Babies)

1st reading
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

13:51

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend entitlement to parental bereavement leave and pay to parents of babies miscarried or stillborn during early pregnancy; and for connected purposes.

Grief hits everyone differently but one thing that is universal is that it takes time. That is why people are entitled to bereavement leave when losing a loved one. I was not prepared for the grief of miscarrying. I was even more shocked that I was not entitled to bereavement leave but legally had to take sick leave instead. But what I was feeling was not a sickness. It was physically painful, yes, but my overriding feeling was grief: a deep sense of loss of hopes, dreams and mourning a lost future with babies I never got to hold.

This happens to about one in four pregnancies. The Miscarriage Association reports that about a quarter of a million people each year in the UK miscarry. This issue impacts families who have got in touch with me in Luton North, but in every constituency in the country there will be families who face this grief everywhere. I cannot believe that in 2021 people are being forced to take sick leave to process their grief.

I knew I was miscarrying during my first pregnancy. It happened at work. I was due to speak for the first time to the executive of my trade union, GMB. Protecting and improving workers’ rights is something I have actively campaigned on for most of my adult life, so it was odd that when it came to my own rights at work I was less vocal than normal, but grief can rob people of their normal selves. Rather than speaking out and saying what I knew was happening to my body at that time—the tell-tale tummy cramps and spotting—I stayed where I was, googled nearby ultrasound clinics under the table, and booked myself in for scan in my lunch break. I sat there devastated, knowing that there was nothing I could do to stop a miscarriage this early in pregnancy, at the same time just not wanting to believe that it was happening. I focused on my report and answered the questions thrown at me. To be honest, I knocked it out of the park; no one would have known that I was having a miscarriage at the same time. Then I walked back to the office in pain and alone, going back to my desk and waiting until I could have the scan that confirmed my fears and my pain.

Important initiatives like Baby Loss Awareness Week and improved coverage in the media, with celebrities and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) bravely sharing their personal experiences, as well as the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) and the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) in his work on the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, are changing the conversation. I have also been proud to get to know the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) through her own experience and her work co-chairing the APPG. They are all helping to break the stigma of miscarriage and baby loss, but the law is too slow to change.

Although my previous very lovely line manager gave me time and space to recover, I was still sending in sick notes from my GP. Yet a few days after the physical pain had subsided, I was not ill any more; I was grieving, with all the classic signs: I could not eat, I could not sleep. I really did not hold much hope that life would ever get brighter. It took time and the support of good people around me. Having to explain to my male boss why the first period following miscarriage triggered grief during a public disagreement was not ideal, but on the whole my previous employer and wonderful colleagues supported me throughout. I cannot imagine going through all that without a supportive employer, yet thousands of women in this country do, and that is why the law must change.

I believe that public opinion is with us. In every baby loss awareness debate in this place there is a great deal of agreement across the political divide, and the call to extend bereavement leave to people who miscarry in early pregnancy has cross-party support, including from a former Health Secretary. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for adding his support to this Bill, and to the charity Sands for its support too, but I know that Bills like this do not get far without Government support, and I would be grateful if Ministers met me on this. We have been waiting for an employment Bill since 2019. My proposal today would be an ideal strengthening of people’s rights at work in any future employment Bill. We should not have to wait any longer to make this change.

There are companies and employers proving that this is possible, with some offering bereavement leave to their staff already. I would like to thank the school where my partner was teaching at the time, which was incredibly supportive during our miscarriages in allowing him the time to grieve as well. Small business owners have got in touch to say that they have amended their compassionate leave policies following personal experiences with miscarriage. It is also reported that Reddit in the US offers up to eight and a half weeks’ bereavement leave following miscarriage. But it is something that all people who experience miscarriage should be entitled to, not just some. Although it was one of the first and is rightly celebrated, bereavement leave for miscarriage in New Zealand is just three days. We have seen over there the change that a Labour Government, and Governments led by women, can make to people’s lives, but, with respect to our friends in New Zealand, I believe we can do better in this country and go further for the parents who experience miscarriage.

The first time, it took me two days to completely miscarry. The second time, I carried the little ones around with me for nearly a week until I went under general anaesthetic to have them removed. I am so grateful to the team at St Mary’s day surgery, which included my wonderful and super-talented friend Helgi Johansson, for taking care of me that day. During the time I found out the twins had no heartbeats and was going to hospital, I tried to work. It really was not the smartest thing I have ever done, but I pushed on until a heavily pregnant woman joined a meeting. Again, I did the meeting, and I was staring at her lovely round belly knowing that mine would not grow like that that time. I am ever grateful that one day it did, and we are so lucky to have our wonderful rainbow baby. But no woman should feel compelled to stay at home or stay in work; they should have the space and choice about how to grieve.

This small change will not stop people miscarrying, but it could make the world of difference. These are just a handful of the messages from people saying what a difference it could make. One woman wrote to me to say: “I was asked to go back to work the day after my miscarriage, by a well-known global corporation—I took some sick days but went back after three days. It was horrendous.” Another wrote: “With every miscarriage, my employer expected me to carry on as if nothing had happened, when what I really needed was to grieve and heal.” Another woman said: “This will make immeasurable difference to many women like me, especially for women in un-unionised workplaces.” She went on to say: “We aren’t sick, it needs to be recognised differently.” For me, that last point really rings true, because being forced to take sick leave wrongly reinforces a woman’s feeling that her body has failed her or that it is somehow her fault. For thousands of women, sadly, miscarriage is part of pregnancy, just as death is part of life.

The law urgently needs to catch up with society to allow everyone who is the one in four the time to grieve and heal. Miscarriage can be physically painful, but it is not an illness, and it is time the law stopped treating it like one. That is why I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Sarah Owen, Jeremy Hunt, Olivia Blake, Bell Ribeiro- Addy, Jim Shannon, Taiwo Owatemi and Alex Davies-Jones present the Bill.

Sarah Owen accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 171).

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting,

(1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion in the name of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg relating to the Independent Expert Panel recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015 not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and the business may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption;

(2) notwithstanding paragraph (2)(c)(i) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), the business in the name of the Leader of the Opposition may be entered upon at any hour and may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours; and proceedings shall then lapse if not previously disposed of;

and, in respect of both items of business, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg.)

Independent Expert Panel Recommendations for Sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I should inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

14:01

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)]

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the following Standing Order be made:

“IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015

(1) The Chair of the IEP shall send to the Chair and Members of the Committee on Standards and to the Clerk of that Committee any report from a sub-panel of the IEP which he has referred to the Clerk of the House under subparagraph (5)(d) of Standing Order No. 150A (Independent Expert Panel) and which contains a determination for a sanction that would, if made by the Committee on Standards, engage the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act 2015.

(2) Where a report has been sent to the Committee on Standards in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Order the Committee of Standards shall make a report to the House in relation to the Member named in that report, setting out a recommendation for a suspension equal to that recommended by the sub-panel to run concurrently with any sanction imposed as a result of the sub-panel’s determination.

(3) Reports under paragraph (2) must be made no later than on the third sitting day after the report of the IEP sub-panel is sent to members of the Committee on Standards, save that the day on which the report is sent shall not be counted in calculating this period.

(4) If the Committee on Standards is unable to meet within 3 sitting days, the Chair shall, if satisfied that the report from the IEP sub-panel has been sent to all members of the Committee, make the report to the House from the Committee required under paragraph (2).”

(2) The following amendments to Standing Orders be made:

(a) In Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards), paragraph (1), at the end insert

“(c) in accordance with Standing Order No. (IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015) to report to the House recommendations for sanctions to run concurrently with sanctions determined by a sub-panel of the IEP and implemented by the House.”

(b) In Standing Order No. 150D (Motions consequent on the ICGS), paragraph (1), at the end, insert

“( ) a motion under paragraph (1) of this Order includes a motion to implement a sanction recommended by the Committee on Standards under Standing Order No. (IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015), or a motion to implement both such a sanction and a sanction determined by a sub-panel of the IEP”.

Being a Member of Parliament is an honour and a privilege. The rights conferred on those who hold office as Members exist to help us perform our constitutional role of representing our constituents and their interests as fully as we can. Yesterday, we reflected on a Member of Parliament whose devotion to his constituents served as an example to us all. Today, with this motion, the House is asked to consider what happens when those elected to this House let down their constituents.

As Members of this House, we have all a shared duty to ensure that Parliament is a safe and positive place of work. In recent years, we have taken important steps to put in place suitable support and protection for all members of our community. Progress is being made in achieving culture change in Westminster. The elements of the independent complaints and grievance scheme—including the behaviour code and the independent expert panel—put in place so far have begun to make a real difference.

As Members will know, when the independent expert panel was established it was felt that recall would be an unsuitable consequence in ICGS cases. This was a decision that the House took in establishing the IEP in June 2020 after taking into account the views of the ICGS staff working group. It was the working group’s considered view that the opening of a recall petition could have implications both for the complainant’s confidentiality and the willingness of future complainants to come forward. It was also felt that, should the 10% signing threshold be reached and a by-election campaign be subsequently triggered, the risk to the complainant’s confidentiality would become greater.

It has been nearly 12 months since the independent expert panel was appointed in November 2020, and I thank Sir Stephen Irwin and the panel for their work. The panel has had to consider very serious ICGS cases. Since the panel commenced its work, this House has had cause to consider once more the discrepancy between ICGS and non-ICGS cases when it comes to their interplay with the Recall of MPs Act 2015.

Further to a period of engagement with the independent expert panel, staff groups and the trade unions, the House of Commons Commission has come to the view that it is right to amend the Standing Orders to enable recall to be triggered as a result of an IEP recommended sanction of suspension. I would like to thank the Clerk of the Journals for identifying a simple and clear mechanism by which that could be achieved. I note that Sir Stephen Irwin, chairman of the IEP, while ultimately wanting the matter settled by legislation, has urged the Government to make this change as soon as possible.

The purpose of the motion before us today is therefore to amend the Standing Orders to ensure that a sanction of suspension of a qualifying duration, made following a report from the independent expert panel, will lead to a recall petition. The Recall of MPs Act 2015 provides three conditions for a recall petition process, one of which is a suspension of a period of at least 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days. For a recall to be initiated under the Act, the sanction must be applied on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Standards, or another Committee of the House of Commons concerned with standards of conduct. The independent expert panel is not a Committee of the House of Commons and therefore a sanction that might otherwise qualify can never result in a recall petition.

If today’s motion were agreed, in future should a Member be suspended for a period of at least 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, whether on the recommendation of the independent expert panel, the Standards Committee or another Committee of the House concerned with standards, the Recall Act would be engaged.

Turning to the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the chairman of the IEP has said he is “seriously concerned” by the proposal to apply these Standing Order changes retrospectively. I will go through his concerns in turn, as I think it is important for the House to understand them and take them into account, given the panel’s independence.

First, the amendment would offend

“against the principle that a sanction properly determined by the IEP should be final”.

Secondly, it would offend

“against the principle that there should be no retrospective imposition of a sanction which was not available at the time when a given case was determined by the IEP.”

It is also worth noting that expulsion was an option available to the IEP at the time, which it chose not to take. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, it

“impinges on the independence of the IEP, since, if implemented, it would amount to a political decision affecting the sanction in an individual case.”

In establishing the independent expert panel, the House recognised the importance of ensuring the panel’s independence. The existing arrangements were put in place to protect the determinations of the panel from debate before the vote on a resolution. The amendment before us today in effect risks drawing the House into a debate on the substance of the IEP’s May 2021 report and whether recall is an appropriate sanction in this case. It is wrong in principle, as Sir Stephen explains in letters placed in the Library by the IEP, for a properly determined sanction to be altered by any other route than a proper appeal or to be made retrospective, but it would also set a very problematic precedent. It would mean the House was taking a decision directly affecting a sanction determined by the IEP. The effect here would be to increase a sanction, but once a change had been permitted, what is to prevent the House making a change so as to reduce a sanction properly determined by the IEP?

This debate is not and should not be about the merits of an individual case. While I do not dispute that in severe cases it is right that a sanction of qualifying duration should lead to a recall petition, it is not right that the House re-considers the effect of a suspension that was previously agreed forthwith and accordingly served. Moreover, we must keep the experience of the complainant in mind. To change how the IEP works now risks reducing confidence in the process. Such a change would not be a fair one, as the complainant arguably engaged with the process on the understanding that, at the time, it would not result in a recall petition being opened.

I therefore urge the shadow Leader of the House to withdraw the amendment, which would undermine the independence of the panel. To apply these measures retrospectively could violate the independence of the panel—an independence that is at the core of why the panel was created in the first place on the recommendation of Dame Laura Cox, and which the House has agreed is essential for achieving culture change in Westminster.

None of us doubts the Opposition’s wish to play their part in making Parliament a safe and supportive place of work. With this motion, we are asked to consider how best to achieve that, so it is in a spirit of co-operation, not confrontation, that I ask the shadow Leader of the House to withdraw her amendment. What we need to see is parity in the effect of sanctions that will, irrespective of their origins, lead to a recall petition. As Sir Stephen has made clear, that will build confidence in the system, and on that basis I commend this motion to the House.

14:09

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment (a), at end insert:

“(3) The provisions of Standing Order (IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act) shall be applied in respect of any report from the Independent Expert Panel published before this Order is agreed which contains a determination for a sanction that, if it had been made by the Committee on Standards, would have engaged the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act 2015, save that, notwithstanding the provisions of that Standing Order, the sanction recommended by the Committee on Standards in such a case, shall be limited to 14 days and the provisions of Standing Order No. 45A shall not apply in respect of any suspension imposed in consequence of such a recommendation, and the provisions of the Standing Order shall be interpreted as if the day this Order is agreed had been the day on which the Report was sent to Members of the Committee on Standards in accordance with that Standing Order.”.

I rise to move the amendment in my name and in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. We are here to debate, and hopefully fix, first, a loophole and secondly, a discrepancy between sanctions from the House of Commons Standards Committee and the independent expert panel of the independent complaints and grievance scheme. As it stands, as the Leader of the House said, if a Member is suspended from Parliament for 10 or more sitting days by the Standards Committee for a breach of the code of conduct, such as regarding expenses or for the misuse of resources, their constituents could, if they chose, cause a by-election under the Recall of MPs Act 2015. Currently, however, when the IEP recommends suspension for sexual misconduct or bullying under the ICGS, they cannot.

The motion that the Government have tabled, which I fully support, will close that loophole, but there is another discrepancy that my amendment seeks to fix. I have been encouraged by what the Leader of the House has said about the issue in general terms, and I seek to approach it in that way, and by the tone in which he said it. This week, in particular, we have been reminded how fragile and important our democracy is. Yesterday, in this place, we heard the best of our House, and today, we are talking about a topic that is not, but we can show the value of our democracy as we assert Parliament’s will—not through personal attacks, but by taking a stand on standards of behaviour.

When we have democracy, as we do in this country, we—each one of us, equally valid under the law—can choose our representatives, and we can boot them out when we do not want them. We can do that peacefully, without threats or coercion of candidates or voters, but that carries with it responsibilities. Because of the way we have constructed democracy in this country, for it to work well, our citizens—our constituents—need to feel able to hold us to account, to scrutinise, to challenge and to question us on everything that affects them and our country, and to do so safely. As elected representatives, we must therefore set and demonstrate the highest standards of behaviour, so our constituents can do all that. So far, so much agreement between me and the Leader of the House about prospective rule change.

The reason that I am putting forward my amendment, which creates a retrospective rule change, is that I cannot think of many jobs of public service where someone found to have carried out sexual misconduct would not face losing that job. In the one relevant case in the past year, however, that has not happened. I have notified the Member concerned that I will be mentioning their case. Let us consider the circumstances that might justify a public servant not losing their job in that situation: if that person demonstrates full and open recognition of the impact of their abusive behaviour on their victims and potentially on members of the public; if they demonstrate and acknowledge the need to change; if they show willingness to take part in some behaviour change programme or voluntary formal scrutiny of some sort; or—this is my preference—if they recognise the dishonour that they have brought to public service and the likelihood of people feeling potentially at risk if they work with or seek help from them, and resign. In the most recent case, in fact the only case to which we are referring, none of those things has happened, so my amendment seeks to make the provision of the motion retrospective in application so it will apply to that case.

I understand and I have listened very carefully to the misgivings and anxieties of colleagues I respect and hold dear, and to others outside this place, about retrospective rule changes. I would rather not table an amendment with retrospective force; it is far from ideal, although it is possible for Parliament to do it. If the Member concerned had taken any of the above options—preferably the last, but any would have been something—perhaps we would not need to do so. But unfortunately the Member did not; so we do. It cannot be right that, simply because of the timing of a complaint, the victims and constituents of one Member, who has been found to have carried out sexual misconduct by the IEP and who has lost an appeal, will not have the opportunity to trigger a recall petition and a by-election should they—not us—choose to do so, when none of the other options appears to have been taken up.

The Government’s strategy on “Tackling violence against women and girls”, published in July, states correctly:

“We are looking carefully at where there may be gaps in existing law”.

That is good, but we must also close the existing gaps in Parliament to tackle a culture of bullying and harassment that has been all too pervasive. The Home Secretary was right to say that of the Metropolitan police, and we need to set that example in Parliament too. We need to think of the staff, future staff and constituents of any Member found to have sexually harassed others. We have made great steps in this place to change the culture, but there is no room for complacency and we must lead by example.

This amendment is one step we could take to go some way to improving the culture around harassment and bullying and to send a clear message that such behaviour will never be tolerated inside this House or by us outside it. I know that all Members of the House share the aim to rid Parliament and our society of the toxicity that leads to cultures of sexual harassment. Although it is not something I wanted to do, the amendment that I have put forward today is a workable way to begin to tackle some of that in this place and set that example.

I seek to test the view of the House, so I will press the amendment to a vote. Parliament can pass retrospective rule change, and it has before, so it is possible. Considering that we are in the circumstances I have outlined, I would like us to lead by example.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I do not want to get involved in the substance of the case, but as a general principle, does the hon. Lady think there is something in the notion of natural law that people should be punished according to the law at the time they commit the offence?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

As I said, I completely understand the reservations that Members have—I have them myself. Retrospective rule change is an extremely unfortunate situation to be put in. As I outlined, other options were open, but unfortunately they were not taken up, so we find ourselves in a position where we will have a prospective rule change and there will be someone among us whom the independent expert panel has found to have carried out behaviour that would otherwise have triggered a recall. I respect and value the different views of the right hon. Gentleman and of other hon. Members, nevertheless I seek to test the opinion of the House by putting the amendment to a vote.

14:15

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for bringing the motion to the House as he said he would. He is absolutely right that it closes the loophole that was recognised and identified as we were putting the measure through the House.

I have been on the ICGS since its inception—I have been on all the working groups and bodies that have been assembled to get to where we are in producing the report and having the policy in place in the House—and I would say that what we have achieved in the past few years has transformed the culture and behaviour around the House. It has been a thoroughly positive initiative and piece of work. I thank everybody who has been involved in the past few years, because we are in a much better place in this House than we were a few years ago when some of these issues were identified.

The Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House are entirely right to talk about the experience of the last few days, its impact on all of us and how the House is being perceived, because there is goodwill towards the House. People are looking at Members of Parliament and what we do and observing how we conduct our business. For the first time in a long time, we are seeing a bit of respect and a grudging admiration for the type of thing that we get involved in and the work we do on behalf of our constituents.

It is right, therefore, that we start to pay attention to some of the outstanding issues in the House that we still have to deal with, such as the essence and culture; how we perceive the behaviour of others; and how some of those behaviours, when they go so badly wrong, as they have in a couple of circumstances, are addressed and rectified. In the ICGS, in the past few years, we have made good progress to address those things, but there are still issues and difficulties that we need to look at.

The SNP will support Labour’s amendment, because no one should get away with something because of a technicality or a loophole, or because a process was not in place at the time of the offence. There is almost a sense that somebody has got away with it and that the whole idea of justice has not been served, particularly for those who were so badly compromised by the actions of one of our colleagues in the House. It is absolutely right that that is addressed and put right.

The Leader of the House is right to identify the concerns of Sir Stephen Irwin, to whom I pay tribute for his work on the IEP. The coming together of the IEP in the last year has been a fantastic innovation. It has been the cherry on the cake for the ICGS; it has allowed us to go into these issues and cases with a depth and thoroughness that would not otherwise have been available. I thank Sir Stephen for the work he has done and for the way that the independent expert panel has made such a difference to the workings and arrangements of the ICGS.

I was at the Commission meeting when Sir Stephen detailed his concerns and difficulties with some of the proposals, but I think the shadow Leader of the House has designed a means for the amendment to be made constructively and within the spirit of what has been achieved. If there is a willingness to try to ensure that justice has been served for the victims in this particular case, we should do that, regardless of the difficulties we may encounter on the way. If it is the right thing to do, the House should do it. We will support the amendment today.

As we go forward, it is important that the House starts to look beyond this at some of the other issues. Something that has not been addressed yet, and which we will have to look at in future, is the concern that Members of Parliament under investigation for the most serious of transgressions against members of staff in this House are still able to access the parliamentary estate and go about their business as normal.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

What about the principle that somebody is innocent until proved guilty?

[Pete Wishart]

That is a very good principle, and it is one that underpins nearly everything we do in this House and throughout the legal systems of all jurisdictions across the United Kingdom, but it does not apply in all the other workplaces throughout the United Kingdom. If somebody has been identified as a transgressor in the most serious way, that person will not have access to their workplace as we are suggesting they still can in this House. I have discussed this with the staff unions in the House and with several members of staff, and I know there is still huge concern. They are looking to bring the matter forward for the House to take a view on and try to resolve to their satisfaction. We are going to have to confront this issue.

The motion is a good one, which we can all support, and I thank the Leader of the House for bringing it forward. It deals with the loophole, and we now have recourse to recall in a way that we never thought we would be able to secure, even a year ago. There is no good reason not to apply the provision retrospectively, if there is a willingness in the House for the issue to be addressed, and to be addressed in the way outlined in the amendment that the shadow Leader of the House has put forward, which I will support. I thank everybody once again for the support we have had throughout the creation of the scheme. I acknowledge the progress that we have made, but there is still more work to be done.

14:21

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I agree with much that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has said, but I am a little more sceptical about whether the changed attitude towards the House and its Members will remain for much longer than another 24 hours. I have been here before, and if we look at some of the online comments some of us have received over the last 72 hours, we see that they have been even more aggressively nasty than the ones last week.

I thank Sir Stephen Irwin, who I think has done a magnificent job ever since he started with the independent expert panel, and all the other members of the panel. However, it is also worth remembering that the person who works most closely with them is the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I think we should pay tribute to the magnificent work that she has done in this field as well. These are often complex, difficult and highly emotionally charged cases to deal with, and coming to a secure idea of what has actually happened in some instances is not simple.

One danger with adopting the policy that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire suggested, in an environment where each parliamentary office has a Member of Parliament and perhaps three or four members of staff, is that it might reveal the name of the complainant, which breaches confidentiality. That needs to be addressed carefully.

When the 2015 Act was introduced, it was absolutely clear that the House intended the process to apply to all the cases that might possibly be brought, because they could then be brought only to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, hence the way in which the legislation was drafted. Any case of bullying or sexual harassment that might have come to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, if we proposed a sanction of 14 or more days or 10 sitting days, would have invoked the recall petition process. When we created the independent expert panel, as the Leader of the House was absolutely right to say, many of the trade unions were opposed to the idea of making that process apply. I have always thought that they were wrong, for the very simple reason that we have ended up looking as if we take offences about registration of interests, paid advocacy and things like that more seriously than bullying and sexual harassment.

Bullying and sexual harassment cases could not possibly lead to somebody leaving the House through the recall petition process as it is presently constituted. However, the independent expert panel could, if it wanted to, recommend the expulsion of a Member. I do not know what the case would have to be to lead to that—that is a matter for it—but I will come on to that later in relation to the amendment from my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. I just think it is wrong that we should have what seems to be a higher bar for sexual harassment and bullying cases than for other cases that come before the Committee.

As Sir Stephen has said and as the Leader of the House intimated, it would be better to correct that by legislation, and I have had this conversation with the right hon. Gentleman. Leaders of the House always say that there is never any time to do anything by legislation and that it is absolutely impossible, until suddenly they find that it is absolutely possible, it is absolutely necessary and it must all be done in one day. That is the kind of thing that happens to Leaders of the House: somebody who lives on a street a little bit further up Whitehall somehow manages to tug the ear of Leaders of the House, and they find time that they never had before.

The slight danger of doing it this way is that something has to go from the independent expert panel to the Committee on Standards. I know that the Committee shall produce a report and it must be equal to the report that has come from the independent expert panel; none the less, there is a danger that the process is a bit more cumbersome and it undermines an element of the independence of the independent expert panel. We might end up having a debate in the Standards Committee, and I think that would be entirely inappropriate. If the House cannot have a debate on it, why on earth should the Standards Committee be able to have a debate on it? I can assure the House, having discussed this with the Standards Committee, that we will not debate that. However, I am the Chair today, and who knows who might be the Chair in the future or who might be the members of the Committee in the future? So I would still prefer us, at some point, to have proper legislation to clear this up, rather than simply relying on the Standing Orders and the good will of the Committee on Standards.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is a very effective Chair, and I think we all respect and admire the work he is doing. On the legislation versus Standing Orders issue that he raises, he is right that Sir Stephen did indeed want legislation, which I would support, but the concern was that such legislation might be subject to legal challenge, and I do not know exactly where that leaves us. I am interested in his view if we were to go down the legislative route. What would be his concerns if legal challenges were to emerge because of that?

[Chris Bryant]

We have not been advised of any problems with legal challenge. I still think legislation would be better. Legislation always—or nearly always—puts things completely beyond doubt, whereas Standing Orders changes do not always put things completely beyond doubt. However, it would then be a proceeding in Parliament and, as we all know, article IX of the Bill of Rights says that no proceeding in Parliament should be

“impeached or questioned in any Court”

of law or any other place.—[Interruption.] I have got it right, have I not? I think we would be able to rely on that very solidly, and that must appeal to the Leader of the House because it goes back to the 17th century. On the question of the independence of the IEP, we are very keen in the Standards Committee that we will do everything to maintain that independence, and it will not be questioned or impeached by us in any shape or form.

I note that the changes to the Standing Orders say that the Chair of the Committee can do something if the Committee has not managed

“to meet within 3 sitting days”.

I think this would happen quite often, because it is quite difficult to ensure that the Standards Committee is going to meet within three days, especially because the independent members come from some distance and we would not necessarily be able to gather them together, and we can be quorate only if we have three lay members and three members who are Members of the House.

I gently suggest to the Leader of the House that it might be nice, at some point, to have a Standing Order that says that all motions from the independent expert panel or from the Committee on Standards will be before the House within three sitting days as well, but I know what he is going to say. He will say that it is all very difficult, and that sometimes it is impossible to find time and sometimes it is possible to find time—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant]

The Leader of the House takes my point.

On retrospectivity, I am afraid I am not going to vote for the amendment in the names of the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Leader of the House; I will be voting against it. The independent expert panel could have decided in the case we are referring to that the Member should be expelled from the House; I do not make a judgment as to whether that would be the right thing to do, but it could have done that. It knew perfectly well that these were the rules and that it was unable to allow the invoking of the Recall of MPs Act 2015. That is why it is unfair to introduce an element of retrospectivity.

It does, however, present a very difficult example for the House that somebody who has been found to have behaved so inappropriately that in any other set of circumstances it would have been invoking the Recall of MPs Act chooses to continue in the House. The Leader of the House himself has said that he thinks the hon. Member should resign, and that is my view as well. The situation is very difficult for constituents in that constituency and for other Members and staff around the House, and I wish it could be other than it is, but that does not mean we can surrender the fundamental principles we have always had.

My main point, however, is that I fully support the closing of the loophole, and I wish this had done before the IEP came to its decision on the case hon. Members have referred to. I only wish that attitudes across the House were changing more rapidly, and we still have a considerable job of work to do on that, but I am assured that many members of staff both of Members and of the House feel reassured by the independence of the IEP process, and I would encourage anybody who ever feels that they have been bullied or have been subject to sexual harassment in their line of work here to present themselves, because they will have a fair hearing from the system.

14:31

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I wish to say from the get-go that had the case that has been discussed involved a Labour Member I would say exactly the same thing as I am about to say.

On the substantive motion, I echo the words of many about the progress that has been made on closing the loophole but only wish, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, that it had been made sooner, because we find ourselves in a difficult position today. I very much hope we do not end up voting on party political lines, however. We cannot be whipped on these issues, and I am sure that standard has been maintained across the House. It will be a shame if we vote on party political lines on these issues rather think about the consequences of for and against. I will be voting for the amendment on retrospectivity, and many of my constituents—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) have something to say?

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

I said to the hon. Lady—not sufficiently sotto voce, apparently—“No doubt you’ll be voting on party political lines for the Labour amendment?”

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely not. We have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, who is highly respected on this issue, that that will not be the case, and I have not been whipped to vote for the amendment, nor has any other Labour Member. So I would welcome my hon. Friend from Lichfield—we can be friends; his home is slightly north of mine—listening to what I am about to say and to what others have said and making a decision based on that.

I heard what the Leader of the House said about making this retrospective being bad for the people who come forward, and I take it in good faith that he says that with all meaning, but I have spoken to almost every single complainant in every single case in this House from the Conservative party, the Labour party—the Greens have got off lightly in this House; I have never had a complaint against the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats, and I have never heard that echoed by any of them. In fact the exact opposite is the case: there is the appalling feeling among those who have come forward that people just get away with it. I have read through every single word of any report released by the ICGS; it is a brilliant panel whose members are learned, capable, thoughtful and absolutely without question fair, but anyone who thinks they would send one of their most vulnerable constituents into a surgery in Delyn tonight has not read the report.

In the last few weeks I have repeatedly had to meet with one of my constituents, a 19-year-old girl who is going through a serious rape trial, and she needs me to tell her it is going to be okay; she needs me to say, “I’ll call you next week.” I hope no one in this House would think it acceptable for her to go and sit in front of a Member of Parliament who has been found, when a member of their staff sent them a text message to say they were struggling with mental distress, to have asked them if they wanted “fun times”.

It is unacceptable that we do not take a safeguarding role. There is nothing in any piece of legislation, whether perfect or not—and much of it is not—that allows me to safeguard that 19-year-old rape victim in north Wales. That is the fundamental point here, and I agree that the amendment is not perfect—although my constituents who pay the bedroom tax will be delighted to hear that people do not think retrospective legislation should apply to them.

[Michael Fabricant]

I am listening to my hon. Friend with great interest, but it is a little unfair to start drawing a comparison with rape, because whatever we might think of the individual concerned no one has accused him of rape.

[Jess Phillips]

Nobody made that connection until the hon. Gentleman just stood up. What I said was that it is unacceptable because that person would have nowhere to go. The reality is that someone who is vulnerable is not going to come forward to somebody who has used vulnerabilities for their own ends. I am simply using an example; I could use any example, but that is a case I have been dealing with and I would not be able to say that that person should go to a surgery in Delyn.

I do not necessarily particularly like the retrospective nature of this—actually, I do not mind, because it was a loophole that should never have existed and we are all about to vote to say that it should not have existed, apart from in this instance. I do not believe that many people could stand here and say they would feel the same way if it involved their political party, and the vote today is not a political decision for me. I understand the concerns of the ICGS chairs, but it is not a political complaint that I am making: it is a moral one, and a safeguarding one that is needed to protect our House and our reputations, and to protect our constituents.

As we walk through the Lobby we have to ask ourselves if we are comfortable with how we are voting. Young women work in my offices here—and there are, by the way, people who were expelled because of this case: the two people who felt they could not work here anymore. People get expelled because of sexual harassment in this building all the time, but those people are the staff who can no longer go on because it is just not worth it. Then they cannot get a job with another Member of Parliament because they are told, “I’ll lean on your references”. I have heard that a few times from complainants in this place.

The truth is that the system was never perfect before and it still will not be perfect. As we go through and test it, we are going to find other things. Lots of us—I can see the faces of those who have been involved in this debate for the entire time that it has been going on—want to make it so that people feel confident and comfortable coming forward. The complainants, most of whom I have spoken to, do not like that we have left this as unfinished business. They want it finished, and retrospectivity will enable that to happen. For me, it is nothing to do with politics; it is to do with what is the right thing to do—what we would want for our children working anywhere, and what we would want for our constituents.

14:41

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate. I thank all those who participated in it. I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for her support for the main motion, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) not just for his support for the main motion but for the considerable contribution that he has made to ensuring culture change in the Palace of Westminster.

I am in considerable agreement with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the Chairman of the Standards Committee. He made the very important point that this is not a loophole, but it was a deliberate decision that was taken because of representations that were made to exclude recall when the independent expert panel was set up. As it happens, I also agree with him that that was a mistake. The arguments against allowing for recall were essentially weak and erroneous. I think that we agreed to them because we wanted to set the panel up in a spirit of consensus and compromise, and to ensure that all the participants were happy, with the knowledge that we could go further in the future.

I turn to the speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). I agree with a great deal of what she says. I confess that my first reaction when I heard about this case was that the Member concerned should not remain a Member of this House, and I said that I thought he should resign. However, I listened very carefully to what the chairman of the IEP said and very carefully, actually, to the basic principle of justice that nobody has a punishment inflicted upon him that was not available at the time the offence was committed. That principle does not apply just to this House; it applies throughout our court and legal system, and it has, really, from the earliest times. I think that is an important principle of justice.

What the hon. Lady said in her impassioned plea is so right in so many ways. Actually, when the recall Bill came through, I was of the view that we could always trust our constituents under the widest possible circumstances of recall. I have never felt that we should shy away from what our constituents want. I was very much in support of what my noble Friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park was trying to do. However, Parliament decided otherwise. Parliament decided to introduce a recall Act subject to strict criteria, including going through a Committee of this House, and those criteria were deliberately not used to extend the Act to the independent expert panel.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will not, actually, on this occasion; I want to complete my thought.

I think so many of us were so desperately depressed when, after all that this House had tried, after the efforts that we made to improve the standards of behaviour, to achieve culture change and to ensure that people working in this palace felt safe and secure and respected, somebody so recently elected, who went on the course about treating people properly—somebody who did all of that and got every message from the Whips, every message from the Government, every message from this House—had broken the rules within a few months. But that was the system that there was; that system provided for a penalty that was imposed; that penalty was imposed by an independent body, and that is justice. One may then change it for the future. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley knows how much I respect her—that is not the normal waffle of politics; I hold her genuinely in the highest regard, and I admire her campaigning spirit—but I am afraid that on this occasion, justice must trump anger.

[Chris Bryant]

The Leader of the House knows that I will vote with him on this matter, but for me the biggest problem is that the Member concerned has shown absolutely no insight into his conduct. That was a point that the independent expert panel made, and it has been absolutely self-evident at every single moment since. That really does pose a problem for all of us. I know that many Members on his own side have said to him, “It would be better for you and for the House if you were to step down.” I very rarely say this, but as a former priest, I would say this to him as well. I think it would be in his own best interests, for him to be able to move on in his own life, if he were to step aside, and that is what I would prefer.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not think that it is really for me to respond to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but it will be in Hansard tomorrow.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

14:46

Division 84

Ayes: 213

---

Labour: 160
Scottish National Party: 36
Liberal Democrat: 12
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Alba Party: 1

Noes: 297

---

Conservative: 300
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Labour: 1
Independent: 1

Main Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That—

(1) the following Standing Order be made:

“IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015

(1) The Chair of the IEP shall send to the Chair and Members of the Committee on Standards and to the Clerk of that Committee any report from a sub-panel of the IEP which he has referred to the Clerk of the House under subparagraph (5)(d) of Standing Order No. 150A (Independent Expert Panel) and which contains a determination for a sanction that would, if made by the Committee on Standards, engage the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act 2015.

(2) Where a report has been sent to the Committee on Standards in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Order the Committee of Standards shall make a report to the House in relation to the Member named in that report, setting out a recommendation for a suspension equal to that recommended by the sub-panel to run concurrently with any sanction imposed as a result of the sub-panel’s determination.

(3) Reports under paragraph (2) must be made no later than on the third sitting day after the report of the IEP sub-panel is sent to members of the Committee on Standards, save that the day on which the report is sent shall not be counted in calculating this period.

(4) If the Committee on Standards is unable to meet within 3 sitting days, the Chair shall, if satisfied that the report from the IEP sub-panel has been sent to all members of the Committee, make the report to the House from the Committee required under paragraph (2).”

(2) The following amendments to Standing Orders be made:

(a) In Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards), paragraph (1), at the end insert

“(c) in accordance with Standing Order No. (IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015) to report to the House recommendations for sanctions to run concurrently with sanctions determined by a sub-panel of the IEP and implemented by the House.”

(b) In Standing Order No. 150D (Motions consequent on the ICGS), paragraph (1), at the end, insert

“( ) a motion under paragraph (1) of this Order includes a motion to implement a sanction recommended by the Committee on Standards under Standing Order No. (IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015), or a motion to implement both such a sanction and a sanction determined by a sub-panel of the IEP”.

Coronavirus Act 2020 (Review of Temporary Provisions) (No. 3)

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

15:01

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)]

I beg to move,

That the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 should not yet expire.

Since we set out our road map out of lockdown in February, we have reopened the economy and lifted restrictions in four steps, carefully removing the rules that have governed our daily lives during the pandemic. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have also emerged from lockdown on similar timetables and life in the UK has returned ever closer to normal.

One of my first actions as Secretary of State was to announce that we would proceed with step 4 of the road map on 19 July and, in doing so, shift the country’s main line of defence from lockdowns to vaccinations. We could do that because our vaccination programme has created a vast wall of defence. We have given nearly 95 million vaccines, with more than eight in 10 of every man, woman and child in the UK over the age of 12 getting at least one jab and some 79% receiving at least two. It is a remarkable achievement and now that our boosters have begun, they are reinforcing that wall of defence still further. The latest estimates show that our vaccines have prevented over 24 million infections, over 260,000 hospitalisations and over 127,000 deaths.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I very much agree with the Secretary of State about the success of our vaccination programme. Does he have any concerns about whether the third dose for those with a compromised immune system and the booster dose for everyone who has had two doses is going fast enough? Are there steps that the Government can take to speed that up to put us in the strongest possible position ahead of the winter?

[Sajid Javid]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the scrutiny that he has provided of the Coronavirus Act 2020 through the Government and in many other ways over the last few months. It has been very valuable, certainly to me. On his specific question, the third jabs, whether they are for those who are immunocompromised or booster jabs, are critical over the next few months. As of yesterday, we have administered some 3.7 million jabs. It is off to a good start but we need to continue to work hard to increase the uptake. That is exactly what is happening and certainly will be over the next few weeks with a big marketing campaign about to begin as a way of trying to boost that. He is right to raise that issue.

The Coronavirus Act has been instrumental in our response to the pandemic. It has helped to steady the ship in stormy waters. It has protected the NHS in its hour of need by allowing tens of thousands of medical and care staff to register with the NHS temporarily, including nurses, midwives, paramedics, radiographers, social workers and many others; by keeping public services going, including ensuring that our courts and local democracy could function; and by providing a vital lifeline for people and businesses across the country, supporting 11.7 million jobs and providing 1.6 million business loans.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I am taking part in a Westminster Hall debate, but I need to ask this important question. I understand the lockdown measures, but will my right hon. Friend ensure this time, God forbid, if things do get worse, that whatever happens, he will keep the schools open, because we know the damage to mental health, educational attainment, lifelong learning and lifetime chances that school closures have brought to our children?

[Sajid Javid]

During the pandemic, my right hon. Friend has done a fantastic job of drawing everyone’s attention, rightly, to the impact that the measures—the lockdown measures in particular—have had on children, especially those in school. I hope he would agree that the plans that the Government have set out, including our primary plan of relying on vaccinations, treatments—there are ever more treatments, which is fantastic news—testing and surveillance, is the right way to deal with the challenges of the pandemic.

With all the measures that we have taken, it is clear that we are now in a new phase of the pandemic and that we are learning to live with the virus. Throughout this public health crisis, we have always sought for our provisions to be proportionate to the threat that we face. Parliament has rightly been given the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation every six months. We do not wish to keep provisions in place any longer than they are absolutely necessary, especially those that are limiting the freedoms that rightly belong to citizens.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says that this House has had time to scrutinise the legislation, but 90 minutes every six months to scrutinise the Act really is not enough time for Parliament.

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady is right to point to the importance of scrutiny. Of course, it is not just the time that we have for debate now or the regular time we have had since this Act has been on the statute book. Scrutiny is also provided in other ways: for example, she will know that Select Committees have looked at the Act, with parliamentarians represented and taking evidence. That is just another way to make sure that the Act is getting the scrutiny that it deserves.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

No one disputes the success that some of these measures have had but there is a strong resentment—which, I have to say, I share—in many quarters about giving any Government extension to powers that are quite as blank as these are. Have the Government considered any other mechanism for allowing extension for a lesser amount of time or are there alternatives by using the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which many of us feel should have been used from the outset, rather than presenting this gift-wrapped to the devolved parts of the United Kingdom?

[Sajid Javid]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s concerns and, rightly, many people across the House share those concerns. He will know that when the original Bill was brought to Parliament, the Government said, rightly, that any measures would be kept in place only for as long as necessary and that they would have to be proportionate. Even before coming to the House today with the recommendation to expire seven of the non-devolved provisions in the Act, 13 have already expired. He also pointed to alternative ways that some of these measures, if necessary, could be taken, and that is a very valuable suggestion. For example, I believe that in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is before Parliament now, my colleagues are looking at some of the provisions on courts and keeping the remote working of courts going. So there are possible alternatives and he is right to draw attention to that.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

The Secretary of State was not originally responsible for this. The issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) raises was first raised on 23 March 2020 when we were first putting the Coronavirus Act into law. The point made at the time was that the Act is not necessary, because it replicates many other pieces of legislation, and that the Act alone allows the Government to act without recourse to the House, which is not true of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 or the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. That is why it is wrong: because it does not have to come back to the House every time it takes away another piece of British freedom.

[Sajid Javid]

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) makes an important point. He will understand that now that the Act is in place, it is important that the Government act promptly and quickly at any time when we can retire, expire or in some cases suspend measures in it; that there is regular scrutiny of the process; and that I and other Ministers come to the House whenever we can to expire its provisions or, if they are to continue, to justify them.

[Dawn Butler]

The Act has always been presented on the Floor of the House as an all-or-nothing Bill; MPs never have an opportunity to change, amend or scrutinise it, so I think that the Secretary of State is just a little misleading in how he is presenting it to the House today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Unintentionally misleading?

[Dawn Butler]

Unintentionally misleading.

[Sajid Javid]

Thank you for that intervention, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that I have been very clear not only about the history of the Act, but about the importance of Ministers coming forward for regular scrutiny to set out which provisions can be expired or suspended, or if expiry or suspension are not possible, why the provisions are necessary. That is the purpose of our debate today.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I think the problem for the Secretary of State is how the Government acted in the past by not bringing things to the House for debate; I know that the chairman of the 1922 committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), used a lot of force to try to get them to do so. We are being asked to take something on trust from the Government when their previous behaviour towards the Act has been—how can I say it? —not very good.

[Sajid Javid]

First, may I wish my hon. Friend a very happy birthday? He makes an important point in his valuable intervention. What I can say, which I certainly hope will reassure him, is that the Act will be regularly reviewed, that parliamentary scrutiny from all quarters is very welcome and that any powers retained in the Act need to be properly justified—they must be necessary and proportionate. That is the case that I am setting out on behalf of the Government today.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

A lot of us feel that this legislation should now just lapse, because there has been a material improvement in the situation. There are other powers should things go wrong, and this House could grant powers in the space of a few hours if there were a new and unpleasant crisis. Why do we have to have these powers hanging over our head when there does not seem to be a need to use them?

[Sajid Javid]

What I can tell my right hon. Friend is that there are provisions that we hope to keep in the Act, subject to the House’s will today, which are still necessary. For example, there are provisions that protect NHS capacity with respect to temporary registration of nurses and other healthcare professionals. There are similar provisions for the care sector; there are also provisions that provide support packages for those whose jobs may have been hit or who have to take time off work to meet the self-isolation requirements. There are provisions in the Act that I think are still necessary; I will speak about some of them in just a moment.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that by leaving the Act intact, albeit with certain restrictions, he is leaving the opportunity for extreme measures to be taken relatively simply and with limited reference to this House, as the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) mentioned? A lot relates to pressures on the NHS; those could come because every winter the NHS is under pressure or because catching up on services puts it under pressure. I am interested to know how on earth my right hon. Friend will work through the next few months to understand what is an undue amount of pressure on the NHS that might require him to take the actions in plan A or plan B, or potentially even further actions.

[Sajid Javid]

In our response to the pandemic, we have set out clearly our plan for the autumn and winter; I have certainly done so in the House. We certainly expect more pressure as we head into winter. We have been very open about that; it is why the covid vaccination booster programme and the flu vaccination programme both remain important. However, there are provisions in the Act that I believe are still necessary and proportionate to help with the pressure that my hon. Friend refers to, such as the registration of healthcare and social care workers and the power to discontinue healthcare assessments for people being discharged from the NHS. I think that it is wise—especially as we head into the winter, when we do not know just how significant the pressures will be—to have that flexibility.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Would my right hon. Friend go a little further? As a medical support worker, I can tell him that there has been very little effort to follow through on a programme begun last year to encourage people to return to being patient-facing. They need to remain engaged; the Act is a good start in that process, but it does not appear to have been developed in any way. I agree absolutely that my right hon. Friend needs to keep those provisions in the Act, but he needs to develop them more than has been done so far—particularly because if we face a bad winter and possibly the resurgence of this or another virus, we will need those people. They need to remain engaged.

[Sajid Javid]

My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that point. We need to keep working on it, but it might be helpful to know that under section 2 of the Act, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has been able to register temporarily some 14,000 nurses, midwives and nursing associates in England, and the Health and Care Professions Council has been able to register more than 21,000 temporary paramedics, operating department practitioners, radiographers and other professionals. That has certainly helped the NHS and the care system.

We have already allowed 13 of the 40 temporary non-devolved provisions in the Coronavirus Act to expire, and at the most recent six-month review we deemed a further seven provisions and part of an eighth suitable for expiry. Last month, as we published our autumn and winter plan, I came to the House to set those out.

Some of the provisions that we are recommending for expiry are some of the most stringent aspects of the Coronavirus Act. They include section 51, which relates to potentially infectious persons and which has been used only 10 times and not since October 2020; section 52, which gave powers to issue directions relating to events, gatherings and premises, and which has never been used; section 23, which relates to time limits for urgent warrants under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and which is no longer proportionate to this stage of the pandemic; and section 37, which allowed for the disruption of education for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and which continues to be unused.[Official Report, 22 October 2021, Vol. 701, c. 8MC.]

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The Secretary of State has been extolling the virtues of parliamentary scrutiny, which, as many right hon. and hon. Members have stated, has been sadly lacking of this Act and in its renewal debates. Will he give us a cast-iron guarantee that should he decide to bring forward vaccine passports, we will get not just a full parliamentary debate, but a vote on any such measures?

[Sajid Javid]

I think that the Government have already been clear that should we try to bring forward what the hon. Lady calls vaccine passports, it would be a decision for the House and it would be a vote. If that happened, we would have to justify it to the House.

In addition, we are expiring sections 56, 77 and 78. Taken together with the 13 out of 40 temporary non-devolved provisions in the Act that have already expired, that will mean that half of the original 40 temporary non-devolved powers in the Act will expire early.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

I welcome the lifting of the more draconian measures in the Coronavirus Act, including section 52 and schedule 22, which gave significant and unprecedented powers to the police relating to events, gatherings and premises, with no protections for the safeguarding of freedom of expression. Most of those powers are mirrored in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Will the Secretary of State go back to his Government and secure an agreement to remove the more draconian elements of that Bill before its next stage?

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the hon. Lady for what she has said, but I think the Government have already set out clearly the provisions that they intend to expire or suspend, subject to the will of the House today, and explained why they have focused on those provisions. I can also inform the House that we recommend the suspension of the remaining unsuspended parts of schedule 28 and section 58.

I am sure the whole House will welcome this news—the latest steps that we are taking towards a more normal way of life—but the winter just around the comer is a cause for caution, with the twin threats of covid-19 and flu still uncertain. In line with our autumn and winter plan, we intend to retain the temporary provisions that remain essential to our ongoing pandemic work, including sections 2, 6, 14, 38, 45, 50 and 75, which cover vital aspects such as supporting the NHS to help it to retain emergency staff and enabling statutory sick pay to be provided for people who are self-isolating. We will review this legislation again in the spring.

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend explain in detail which of the measures that the Government seek to retain could not be implemented alternatively by means of the Civil Contingencies Act or the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend will know that there are numerous measures that the Government are planning to retain. To do proper justice to his question, I would have to go through them one by one and try to link them with every single Act, but I should be happy to meet him or write to him giving him the proper detail, because I think it was a very fair question.

[Dawn Butler]

rose—

[Sajid Javid]

I think I have given the hon. Lady enough opportunities to intervene.

We have come so far and achieved so much as a country because of the sacrifices of the British people and the dedication of our fantastic public servants. We are learning to live with the virus, so we can face the winter ahead with an ever greater degree of confidence. There is no doubt that we will continue to experience bumps on the road—covid-19 has not, of course, gone away, and flu remains an ever present danger—but I am confident that the steps that the Government have set out today strike the right balance, removing unnecessary stringent measures while retaining the tools to fight infection wherever it might arise.

15:22

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

We do not oppose the renewal of the Act and we will not oppose its renewal in the Division Lobby, but I do have huge sympathy with the Members who have raised concerns about the way in which the Act is scrutinised and asked questions about whether there are alternative means of putting this legislation on the statute book. The main reason we will not oppose the Act is the provision of statutory sick pay from day one and not day four, which was the case before the Act received Royal Assent. Given that we have a Chancellor who has been very keen to cut back universal credit, I am not convinced that if the Act fell today the Chancellor would carry on paying statutory sick pay from day one, and would find time to introduce an appropriate Bill. However, I urge Ministers to try to find a better way for the Act to be scrutinised.

Let us think back to March 2020—and I remember it well. A deathly silence was falling upon our streets, as we knew that a deadly pandemic was set to spread with ferocity. We knew that the House had to act with urgency and haste. Indeed, I, as shadow Health Secretary, was invited to Downing Street to meet the Prime Minister, to meet Dominic Cummings and to meet various officials, to discuss in principle agreeing to this Act on a cross-party basis. The then Health Secretary invited me to the Department of Health and Social Care on numerous occasions to sit down with him and his officials to discuss the content of the Act. We proceeded on a cross-party basis because we understood the gravity of the crisis that we were facing.

Measures were put in the Act that we had asked for, such as the provision of statutory sick pay from day one, but other measures were put in the Act that we had not asked for, although in the circumstances we were prepared to go along with them. One of the things that we asked of the Government, working with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and other Members, was a renewal of the Act every six months, on a regular basis. From memory, I think we may have asked for a renewal every three months, but we will have to double-check with Hansard on that front. We also asked for the ability for various aspects of the Act to be expired.

Perhaps I am naive, but I did not anticipate that 18 months later the Act would be renewed again on the basis of a 90-minute debate not allowing Members to scrutinise this properly—and given the way in which the House has decided to debate it, Members cannot even table amendments and have their point of view expressed on the Order Paper. I strongly encourage the Government —the Executive who control the business of the House—to try to find a more satisfactory way in which the Act can be properly scrutinised, particularly if the Government are minded to renew it again in six months’ time rather than expire it, as was originally intended.

[Mr Bone]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument. Given what he has said, would it not be a good idea for the Opposition to vote against the motion and perhaps defeat the Government, so that the correct procedures could be in place tomorrow?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me. I can understand that if the Act fell, there would be time for alternative provisions to be put in place, but I am afraid I do not have confidence in the continuation of this particular Treasury, which is keen to find savings in the public finances, to provide statutory sick pay from day one. Voting down the Act today would be voting down statutory sick pay from day one, and I do not want to see the Government revert to providing it from day four. That is why, although I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point, I am not prepared to vote down the Act.

[Dr Murrison]

I always listen to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments with the greatest of interest. He is concerned that there is not sufficient scrutiny. Will he compare and contrast the attendance in this short debate on the Government Benches with that on the Labour Benches? I count three of his Back-Bench colleagues at the moment.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The right hon. Gentleman is better than that, with respect. He is very experienced, and he knows full well that right hon. and hon. Members have various responsibilities as Members of Parliament. Come on! That was akin to those ridiculous tweets that we sometimes see going around, saying that an important issue is being debated in Parliament and asking why the Benches are empty and so on, when it is an evening Adjournment debate.

[Richard Fuller]

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, but there is an underlying point. On many occasions since March 2020, the Opposition have absented themselves from providing effective voting opposition to measures that the Government have proposed, often affecting the rights and liberties of individuals. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he is balancing all the issues involved in the restrictions that result from the continuation of the Act with the single purpose of continuing statutory sick pay for three days, and that because he is not prepared to test the willingness on the Government Benches to support him in any measure he would turn down this whole measure, I think that what he is handing us is giving him a little bit short of what he might expect.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that if the Government wanted to bring forward a separate Bill to pay statutory sick pay from day one—and to increase the level of statutory sick pay, which is not currently at a satisfactory level—that would of course have our support. However, that would have to come from the Executive. It is unlikely to come from Back Benchers, although I am confident that, should such an opportunity present itself, the hon. Gentleman would find himself in the same Lobby as me on the question of paying enhanced statutory sick pay.

A number of provisions have been taken out of the Act that restricted liberties and freedoms. We raised concerns about those provisions six months ago and 12 months ago, and we are pleased that they have been lifted from the Act, particularly those sections that gave the power to detain potentially infectious persons, which have been used for a number of prosecutions, every one of which was found to be unlawful by the Crown Prosecution Service. Hon. Members from both sides of the House made that point in the six-month debate and in the original debate 12 months ago, so we are pleased that the Government have listened to those Members and to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which said that those powers ought to be repealed. They have now been removed from the Act.

There are some sections whose removal from the Act we would question. A lot of my local government colleagues have asked why the powers that enable local authorities to meet remotely have been removed from the Act. Would it not be better to allow local authorities to come to their own decisions on whether they want to continue to hold online meetings in the next few months? I am not quite sure why we need to remove that provision from the Act.

Of course we would not want to lose statutory sick pay from day one, but the Secretary of State also referred to the emergency legislation covering healthcare workers. This is important because it means that we can get recently retired workers back on their licences and back onto the frontline. We would not want to lose that from the Act. The Act continues to allow remote participation in court proceedings to take place, which we believe is needed in the current circumstances.

The Act was not the legislation that brought in the lockdowns, including the local lockdowns for my home city of Leicester and areas such as Burnley, Bolton and Calderdale, which, sadly, were put into localised lockdown in the past year or so. None of us wants to see those lockdowns ever again. Nobody wants to see a national lockdown, and nobody wants to see local lockdowns. I understand that the Government have quite rightly ruled out further lockdowns, but the public health crisis is not over. That is why we still need some of the provisions in the Act. Covid has not gone away. We can learn to live with the virus, but that is not the same as pretending the virus no longer exists. Yesterday, we recorded close to 50,000 infections, more than 7,000 people were in hospital—with nearly 800 in ICU—and every day on average 100 of our fellow citizens sadly die from this disease. A decision on vaccination in schools by the appropriate committee was delayed, but record numbers of children are now infected. In the past three weeks, we have seen an average of 10,000 new covid infections every day in schools and thousands are missing school as a consequence.

The ongoing pandemic is making existing inequalities worse and worse, so we need some of these provisions to stay on the statute book. However, we need to go further as well. As I have said, I never want to see another lockdown again, either locally in my home city of Leicester or nationally. There are a couple of things that I hope the Government will consider in order to avoid further lockdowns and to avoid needing some of the most draconian measures in the Act to return.

First, we need to fund public health properly in the spending review. The virus thrives on health inequalities. The Secretary of State rightly referred to health disparities and stalling life expectancy in Blackpool, but his Government have presided over public health cuts of £43 per person per year across Blackpool, which are some of the largest in the country. Secondly, we need substantial investment in ventilation support for businesses, public spaces and schools. Better ventilation has been proven, time and again, to reduce the transmission of covid. In addition, it brings other health benefits.

We know that vaccination is waning and that parts of the programme are stalling. The wall of defence is crumbling, so we need to encourage those retired clinicians who helped with the initial vaccination programme to help again. We also need to encourage those retired clinicians who did not help out last time to consider playing their part. That is why the clauses in the Act on the emergency registration of healthcare workers need to remain on the statute book.

We also need to fix the booster programme. As of Friday, only half of eligible over-80s had received their booster jab. Charities including Blood Cancer UK and Kidney Care UK are warning that the third-dose programme for the immunosuppressed has been a “chaotic failure”, with between 55% and 60% yet to be invited to get a third dose, as of Friday. What are the Government going to do to scale up third jabs and boosters? Will the Government consider pop-up clinics, for example? They were successful in the previous round of vaccinations.

Our case rates are concentrated among the young, but only around 30% of children have been vaccinated. One problem in getting vaccinations out to children is that there are not enough staff, which is another reason why we need the emergency registration provisions to stay on the statute book to try to encourage more retired clinicians to join the children’s vaccination programme.

The Secretary of State is now allowing children to book a vaccination in a walk-in centre for half-term, but it is half-term this week in some parts of the country, including in Leicester, so can that part of the programme start today rather than waiting for next week?

There are still parts of the country, including Leicester and many London boroughs such as Brent, Lambeth and Tower Hamlets, as well as parts of the country that were in lockdown last time such as Blackburn and Pendle, where second-dose rates are still below the national average. What will we do to drive up vaccination rates in those parts of the country that were in lockdown last time and where vaccination rates are still too low? Will the Secretary of State consider guaranteeing mandated paid time off for vaccination and mandated sick pay for people who need to take a couple of days off due to side effects or due to feeling unwell, as people sometimes do following a vaccination?

We will support the Government in renewing this Act, although we want them to find a better way of scrutinising its provisions. We are concerned about the infection rates we are seeing. The embers are burning bright again and, because we were world leading on vaccination, we could be world leading again on the waning of vaccination. We need a plan to drive up boosters, to drive up third doses and to drive up second doses for those who have not had them. This disease remains lethal, especially to the frail, to those with underlying health conditions and, obviously, to those who are unvaccinated.

Let us strengthen the vaccination programme, let us pay proper sick pay, let us ensure fresh, clean air in public buildings and let us properly fund public health. Remember that the Select Committee reported last week that the Government’s handling was one of the worst public health failures in British history. This is no time for complacency, and I hope Ministers act now.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

There is a limited amount of time for this debate, which needs to finish at 4.31 pm, and I want to give the Minister 10 minutes to respond. There are more people standing than indicated to the Speaker’s Office that they wanted to speak, which means there is even more pressure on time. I ask hon. and right hon. Members to confine their speeches to five minutes.

15:37

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will, of course, obey your strictures on time.

I welcome what the Secretary of State has done in not continuing with some of the most offensive and egregious provisions in the Act, particularly the one enabling almost indefinite detention. I have looked very carefully at the provisions that are being continued, and all the very unwelcome powers are not being continued. Although there remain some unwelcome powers with which I might quibble and although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said, there are other ways of delivering some of them, the most offensive ones have been removed, which I welcome. I therefore will not seek to divide the House. If others were to do so, I will not oppose the renewal of these provisions.

It is worth saying, because many people outside the House do not understand this point, that it is not the Coronavirus Act 2020 but the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 that has been used to deliver the lockdown measures and the other measures that people have found so very difficult. The 1984 Act remains in place and gives Ministers all the powers they would want to be able to lock down the country again—I hope that is never needed, but they have the powers if they need them. I do not think that Act comes with sufficient scrutiny, which is why I strongly support the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) to reform it by better combining the necessary powers with the necessary parliamentary scrutiny.

On parliamentary scrutiny, I welcome what I detected was an improvement in the tone from the Opposition. I welcome what the shadow Secretary of State said; there was an increasing recognition that scrutiny and challenge to government is necessary. When some of my colleagues and I were challenging and opposing some of the Government measures that predate my right hon. Friend’s accession to the post of Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, it felt like a lonely occupation. We were not joined by the shadow Secretary of State or by many of his colleagues, so I am pleased that he is becoming more enamoured of the concept of scrutiny, which is very welcome for the Opposition.

[Mr Davis]

May I ask my right hon. Friend to hesitate in his laudatory comments about the Opposition Front Benchers? One problem we have is that we cannot amend the provisions. The deal they did not strike back on 23 March 2020, and that they should have, was that this should have been an amendable measure. We could then have put everything right.

[Mr Harper]

That is exactly right. It is for that reason that if there were a Division I would not be voting for this legislation, because I do not think it comes with enough parliamentary scrutiny—the sort of scrutiny that there is if we use the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

[John Redwood]

Would it not also help the Government’s case if they gave us more detail on which of these measures actually worked and did some good? We need more post-result audits so that we can have more confidence in some of these measures.

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, which would be worth following up.

Conscious of your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me make a couple of final points. On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on vaccine passports, the Secretary of State gave half of the right answer, which was that the Government would have to persuade the House to introduce vaccine passports, and he confirmed that the House would have to vote on it. The final piece to come in his wind-up remarks is that that vote will come ahead of any decision to introduce vaccine passports, rather than there being only a retrospective vote after their introduction. If he confirmed that, he would do the House a powerful service.

The final point is to reinforce what the shadow Secretary of State was saying, and what I said in my intervention, about speeding up second doses and third doses for those who are immunosuppressed and, to release the pressure on the NHS, focusing on improvements in social care this winter. My local NHS trust—I have raised this issue with the Secretary of State privately—has made the point that some of the pressures are because it cannot get the people who have received all the hospital treatment they need out into the community, because of a lack of either residential social care or domiciliary social care. For it to deliver on clearing the backlogs of healthcare and to stop accident and emergency backing up, it must be able to get people out of the “back door” of the hospital into social care or back home. It is social care that will put the NHS under critical pressure this winter, in the next few weeks, so I urge my right hon. Friend to focus on the social care aspect of NHS pressure, not just on NHS pressure. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will broadly obey your strictures and sit down.

15:43

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I had a profound sense of déjà vu in preparing for today’s debate, although it is hard to believe it is six months since we last considered this and 18 months since our nations went into lockdown, during which period I have probably said everything on this subject before. Let me recap by saying that the Scottish Government support the four-nations approach to tackling coronavirus as far as is possible, while respecting differences of approach. Thankfully, the direction of travel is that we are all emerging from the pandemic and, gradually, more of our old freedoms are being restored. As I did last time, let me pay tribute to everyone for everything they have done to support us and the NHS during this unprecedented period. My thoughts and prayers are with everyone who has lost loved ones to covid throughout this period, and too many have—there have been more than 161,000 deaths and, sadly, the number is still rising.

When we last debated the temporary provisions, I was looking forward to receiving my first vaccination; like so many, I am now fully vaccinated. Vaccination really is a game-changer and I encourage everyone who is offered a vaccine to take up that offer. If anyone has not yet done so, will they please reconsider?

[Dr Murrison]

When the hon. Gentleman says vaccination, I hope he also means vaccination against seasonal flu, which is currently at the front of my mind as this morning I had my jab in the Attlee Room in Portcullis House. Seasonal flu will potentially cause more of a problem this winter than covid. It is important to get that message across. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that we are currently not where we really ought to be in vaccinating people against flu?

[Martyn Day]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I do indeed agree. I wonder whether he has seen an advance copy of my notes, because I was coming to that very point. We are still witnessing too many infections and I worry that, when they are combined with flu, we could yet have a very difficult winter ahead for our health services—a “twindemic”, if you like. The successful roll-out of vaccinations and the protection of the most vulnerable remain essential, so I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point.

As I have said, the SNP welcomes the four-nations approach to tackling the coronavirus pandemic. However, the UK Government would do well to match Scotland’s science and public health-first approach for the remainder of the pandemic. The Scottish Government have followed the science and done what they can within their power, which is why Scotland retains stronger rules on face masks, for example. As we head into what will likely be a difficult winter, the UK Government must be willing to follow the examples set by the devolved nations and be prepared to introduce measures such as face masks in shops and on transport, to protect people from both coronavirus and flu this winter.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Scotland and Wales have national ID cards, and if plan B is triggered in England, there is a possibility that we will have an ID card in England, too. Does the hon. Gentleman feel it would have been better to have a whole-United Kingdom covid ID card, so that each nation is in sync, or does he think it is better for each nation to have individual ID cards?

[Martyn Day]

I should point that they are not ID cards but vaccine certificates. As I have said, we respect the differences, and although we welcome a four-nations approach we will move differently if things move at different paces.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

On the hon. Gentleman’s stricture about the mask mandate— the requirement on which he wishes us to follow Scotland—the wearing of masks does not seem to have reduced the rate of infection in Scotland, which is somewhat higher than it is in England, does it?

[Martyn Day]

I am an enthusiastic mask wearer for one simple reason that I think helps us all: it sends a very strong message to people that the virus has not gone away. I therefore encourage people to wear a mask, which also has benefits in the reduction of transmission.

The UK Government must be prepared to support people financially should greater restrictions need to be reintroduced this winter if conditions deteriorate. Failing that, they must provide the powers to the devolved Governments to do so themselves.

We in the SNP continue to have serious concerns about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the powers in the UK Government’s Coronavirus Act 2020, and we have raised those concerns on several occasions from Second Reading onwards. It is important that Parliament has its say, especially now, as the pressure of the pandemic is easing. As I have said in previous debates, the reviews of the temporary provisions must not be rubber-stamping exercises; they must provide meaningful scrutiny, protect human rights and promote public health.

It is important that Parliament has its say on the regulations in place to tackle the biggest health emergency of our lifetimes. The Government are under huge pressure, but their decisions need the insight and legitimacy of Parliament. By giving Parliament the ability to scrutinise the schedules and measures individually, we could have gone a long way towards that aim. It is unacceptable that Parliament does not have that ability. For example, the SNP supports the repeal of schedule 21, which contains broad police detention powers. Scottish police have not used schedule 21 powers in Scotland and alternative laws could be used in lieu of the schedule.

We are not out of the pandemic yet; it will be with us for some time to come and the global threats of new variants will be with us until the world is vaccinated. We have to get this right. When I last spoke on the temporary provisions six months ago, I stated that

“more needs to be done to restore public trust in the handling of issues such as covid contracts and in the security of powers contained in the Act.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 1125.]

I fear very much that the Government are not learning lessons fast enough, particularly in respect of contracts and vaccinations.

The case of Valneva in West Lothian is a clear example. Yesterday, that vaccine company which is developing the only inactivated covid-19 vaccine in clinical development in Europe, and manufacturing that vaccine in Scotland, published positive data from its phase 3 clinical trial. I welcome the fact that the Health and Social Care Secretary has changed his views since incorrectly telling the House that Valneva’s vaccine would not get approval from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. We know that, if approved, Valneva will be the only inactivated, adjuvanted whole virus vaccine against covid-19 in the UK—a fantastic innovation, particularly for those who have been waiting for an inactivated vaccine. I want to know when it might be available for our constituents. I hope the Secretary of State will join me in welcoming this news, made possible by support from the Department of Health and Social Care and the National Institute for Health Research, and recognise that it paves the way towards initial approval from the MHRA.

Finally, while maintaining health policies for the remainder of the pandemic is sensible, this must be done with the scrutiny of Parliament and the confidence of the public.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

In order to be helpful, I will impose a five-minute limit. If colleagues take less than that, we will definitely get everybody in.

15:50

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

We are in a profoundly different place from where we were 19 months ago when we entered the pandemic and went through a series of lockdowns. The medicines that doctors use and prescribe and the procedures that are in place are all profoundly improved. The vaccination programme has been a revelation thanks to the quality, the range and the roll-out of the vaccines. We must recognise that, today, we are in a profoundly different situation from where we were right at the beginning. We just have to look at the third wave that we are going through at the moment and at the connection between infections, hospitalisations and deaths. Those rates are fundamentally different from those in the first and second waves, so we should be taking a profoundly different approach to dealing with this virus.

All variants of concern are defeated by our vaccines at the moment, and we have every expectation that that will continue to be the case into the future. By maintaining the Coronavirus Act 2020, but with perhaps a limited number of provisions, we maintain the fundamental approach to dealing with this virus. Society as a whole and the civil service more narrowly are still looking at this challenge in the same way, and there is not, in that sense, a change of mindset.

We are approaching what will be a tough winter. No matter what happens, we will have a very difficult winter. That may be due to the coronavirus itself or to influenza, but it will also be due to the very significant build-up in waiting lists and in conditions that should have been investigated 18 months ago. We know that these cases are building up and that it will create a huge amount of pressure on the national health service.

I want to focus today on the care sector. Some 18 or 19 months ago, we would have had cross-party consensus on the fact that the care sector needed fundamental reform. That is far more true today than it was back then. It is clear that the care sector needs far more resources today than it needed then. There is a shortfall of about 100,000 carers. With the compulsory vaccination approach that has been taken in the care sector, the Government are expecting another 40,000 carers to leave. That will create huge problems not only for the carers, but for the residents themselves.

In my constituency, the care sector is already under tremendous pressure. Some people are leaving because of the pressure that they are under, and some because they choose not to be vaccinated. Some of them are finding employment in the national health service. They are leaving the care sector and going into the national health service to provide care there, but at some point we may be imposing vaccinations in the national health service as well. We do not know how many will leave the NHS at that stage, but if vaccinations in the NHS stand at about 90%, we could be looking at a loss of more than 100,000 people.

We have concerns about people being transferred out of care in the national health service and into the care sector. We know that the situation is going to get substantially worse as we go through the winter and more carers leave the care sector, but we do not yet know when the same approach will be imposed on the national health service. I therefore ask the Minister: what is the Department’s thinking at the moment? When will we impose compulsory vaccination on the NHS, just as has been imposed on the care sector, and what impact will that have?

We need a fundamental reset in our approach to dealing with the coronavirus. The circumstances are fundamentally different now, because of medical advances and so many other things. We have the opportunity to reverse the decision on the care sector. We want to keep carers caring where they want to be caring. We ought not to be imposing this decision now, because in a couple of weeks it is going to be too late. I am concerned about plan B and the possibility of ID cards or covid passes—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We need to move on.

15:56

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

Today really feels like groundhog day. The Government are again pushing through the Coronavirus Act with no scrutiny from Parliament. I do not know what it is about this authoritarian Act that the Government love to push through. Some 18 months ago, the Bill was nodded through—understandably, in a way, but it was never, ever proportionate. As the Secretary of State said, it was fast-tracked legislation. It contained really draconian powers, including the powers to postpone elections, close borders, detain people not suspected of a crime, ban gatherings and remove safeguards for disabled people. This is the mother of all Parliaments and we should always have the opportunity to scrutinise Government legislation. That is what we are elected to do. This all-or-nothing approach does not wash; it is wrong.

As a parliamentarian, I want to get my control back. I want to get back my powers to scrutinise the Government. The Government should not be the sole decider of legislation. We live in a democracy, not an autocracy. The Government should not be making all the rules themselves. That said, I am pleased that some of the most draconian parts of the Act have now been expired. I had a meeting with the Minister and am pleased that she listened to my concerns. Section 51 and schedule 21 —the powers relating to potentially infectious persons—have now been removed. As has been said, every single charge under schedule 21 was wrongful. Those 292 charges were incorrect, and that meant 292 distressed people who were already distressed during the pandemic.

We have to make sure that the Bill is fit for purpose, and ultimately it is not. It therefore needs to be scrapped and there needs to be a new Bill. I am already the sponsor of a Bill that has been presented to the House: the Coronavirus (No. 2) Bill. If we were to vote down this Act today, we would have 21 days to bring forward a new Bill. There is already one that is ready—oven-ready, some might say. [Interruption.] You liked that, did you? My Bill is properly ready to go.

This Government have proved time and again that they cannot be trusted. It is one rule for them and one for us. The latest person that we found had broken the rules was the Prime Minister himself, as his wife’s best friend went around to theirs for Christmas dinner, while other people dined alone throughout Christmas. As I have said, if we voted down this Act, we would have 21 days to bring a new Bill to the Floor of the House. We can do that and we can do it quickly.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new role and I appeal to him to consider one more vital change. I urge the Government to review every fixed-penalty notice issued under the coronavirus and public health regulations, and to establish an appeals mechanism, because people cannot appeal at the moment. Between March 2020 and June 2021, the police processed 117,213 fines. Let us not forget that we had no chance to scrutinise provisions when the Government raised fines from £960 to £10,000. The Guardian revealed that people of colour were 54% more likely to be fined than white people. I say to colleagues in all parts of the House that we should never be forced into an all-or-nothing approach when it comes to legislation. That is not our job. We are parliamentarians and we need to scrutinise legislation. Twenty-one days is enough time to consider better legislation. As we have the Coronavirus (No. 2) Bill, based on Liberty’s “Protect Everyone Bill”, I say to every single Member of this House that we can do that.

I am clear that we need to repeal and replace the Coronavirus Act not just because it is dangerous with regard to our rights and our liberties, or because it served the purpose that it was meant to 18 months ago, but because we must do better. We must learn the lessons. I am part of the Science and Technology Committee and there is a joint report that says that this Government have failed on so many occasions. This is an opportunity where we can do better and where this Government can do better. Let us do better, not just for us but for the country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am going to reduce the limit to four minutes but it should stay at four minutes if I do it now.

16:00

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I agree with every word of what the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) said. She made the point that we took the Bill through the House in one day and it was in fact unnecessary because the power was already replicated in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. That was not just my opinion on 23 March—it was also reiterated by the Speaker’s Counsel, who actually wrote the Civil Contingencies Act, so that makes the point in terms.

Some improvements have been made in the proposal before us today, and that is good. However, as the hon. Lady said, we had forced quarantine, effectively house arrest, for the whole population; schools shuttered; cancelled elections; lone doctors being allowed to section people, an astonishing removal of civil liberties; families being unable to hold the hands of their loved ones; dog walkers in Derbyshire being embarrassed; and people being stopped because they had coffee on a walk in the park. This is not the sort of thing that is policing by consent in the United Kingdom. As she said, of 292 cases brought by the police, not one stood up—not one. That is an astonishing statistic, and we should remind ourselves every day this Act is in place that that is the case.

The other point, which the hon. Lady did not make much of but I think is important, is that of accountability. The point of bringing the Government back here—any Government, by the way, not just this Government—is to improve decision making; to make them make the right decisions. We have just had an astonishingly thorough report from two Select Committees that has pointed out that the Government have made mistake after mistake after mistake—mistakes that cost thousands of lives. The one that leaps out at me is the treatment of care homes, but that was only one part of it: there was also the triaging system. All of it led to thousands of lives being lost. Those mistakes might not have been made if the Government had to justify every element of their strategy throughout these past 575 days. What I said back on 23 March—that this was an unnecessary Bill—I believe still today. I agree that the way to do this is to rewrite the whole thing from scratch.

16:03

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I agree with the comments of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler).

Given the sweeping and draconian powers that this Government granted themselves under the cover of an emergency, Liberal Democrats only very reluctantly supported this unprecedented legislation for an unprecedented crisis back in March last year, when we knew very little about the virus. I am proud that my party pushed hard for a three-monthly review of these powers, which then secured us the six-monthly review. But at each renewal, as has been said so eloquently, there has been limited opportunity to scrutinise or to table or debate amendments.

While there were important measures in the Act relating to benefits, furlough and registration of healthcare professionals, the Government have had ample time since to legislate properly, with proper scrutiny, for those important measures, yet they chose not to. Instead, unnecessary, far-reaching powers encroaching on our civil liberties have twice been renewed, with minimal debate—measures such as detention of potentially infectious persons that I believe have actually resulted in 295, not 292, wrongful prosecutions. That is why Liberal Democrats have consistently voted against the renewal of this Act.

Ministers have proved, as has already been said, that they did not need many of the powers they awarded themselves on restricting gatherings or closing down education settings. I hope and pray we never close any schools again, and I hope that the Secretary of State will give us a cast-iron guarantee on that. Throughout the pandemic, the Government have used existing public health legislation or guidance to impose restrictions, so I am glad that they have finally seen the light and are today expiring many of these controversial measures. It is not before time, but once again we have been granted merely 90 minutes to discuss the remaining legislation. I am afraid that we will see this casual approach to our civil liberties once again with vaccine passports, given the number of flip-flops and U-turns we have had on that subject.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments to me earlier that there will be a vote of this House. I reiterate the question of the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) about whether we will get a vote in advance of any vaccine passports being introduced, because the track record we have seen with the Coronavirus Act 2020 does not fill me with any confidence in this Government. I urge them to stop riding roughshod over this Parliament and to allow us to do our duty as elected representatives and properly scrutinise, amend and vote on measures that fundamentally curtail our liberties.

16:06

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I refer to the declarations I have made relating to the Covid Recovery Group. When we rammed this Act of Parliament through, I stood over there in Committee and said it would bring forward a dystopian society. I had no idea then of just how dystopian it would be. I could never have imagined that two friends could draw the attention of the police for going for a walk with a coffee. I could not have imagined the complexity of the rules around social and childcare bubbles, which caught out even the Prime Minister—or, if not caught out, at least drew the scrutiny of the media. We should never have got ourselves into a position where the rules were so complex that whether someone could have a friend round at Christmas was a question worthy of scrutiny in a major newspaper.

As for care homes, I will share a brief part of a quote from a constituent. He said:

“Just before my wife died was our 50th wedding anniversary and her 77th birthday. I was allowed to look through an almost closed window for the 50th but talking was almost impossible…on her birthday.”

Some of us have only been married for 25 years. Who among us could possibly imagine how that must have felt? I could read the rest of the quote, but there is not time and it is too upsetting.

My goodness, what a dystopian time we have been through. One of my greatest fears is about the fact that the Conservative party has been on this side of the House while we have done it, because only one party, with the possible exception of the Lib Dems on occasion, can really say it is a party of Government that stands for freedom, and that is the Conservative party. With great respect to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—he is a great man who believes in liberty—it will be difficult for all the people who stayed in the Cabinet and took these decisions to say that they stand for freedom in the years ahead. I am absolutely determined to recover from the position we are and have been in, but we will need a Government who can stand for freedom and do it with a great deal of sincerity, for all my respect for my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I know this has been an extremely difficult time for them, but we need a change of heart.

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). The substance of the motion before the House is relatively inoffensive, compared with what we have been through. I hope the House will not divide. If it does divide, I will not vote for the motion, but abstain, because we should do this sort of thing in a different way. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for expiring the schedule 21 and schedule 22 powers.

The point is where we have come to. Of course the substance of the law matters, but it is about the presentation. There are people now outside who do not understand what we have done and have started falling into conspiracy theories, and it is hardly any wonder. I was accosted on the street outside by some people who had perhaps had a couple of drinks and recognised me. They were shouting at me about this Bill, which was not very welcome after the day we had had, but they have fallen into the idea that the Coronavirus Act 2020 has been used to lock us down, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean said, it is not true; it is the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, which still hangs over our heads like a sword of Damocles.

The Secretary of State, for all my faith in his good character, has only to walk into his office and sign a piece of paper and we will all be locked down at home again. It is the most extraordinary power for one man to hold over us all, and that must be changed. That is why I am grateful to Lord Sumption for giving me the outline of the 1984 Act reform that I hope the Secretary of State will look at. I appeal to him in good faith. He is a believer in liberty. We will need to change how the 1984 Act powers are exercised if we truly are believers in freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

It is time for these powers to lapse and be replaced with legislation that can be more considered. I hope that the legislation just goes through today because, as I say, it is relatively inoffensive, but we will need to turn the corner and show the public that we stand for freedom and that in the long run, after we have coped with coronavirus, their rights are sacrosanct and we will never, ever do to them again what we have done in the past couple of years.

16:10

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

We need to have a frank and honest discussion about where we are on covid. It is now clear that the Government’s covid strategy is again going badly wrong with fatal consequences.

We need to be clear that our country currently has the world’s second highest number of new cases and the world’s second highest number of hospitalisations. At the start of this month, more than 200,000 pupils were off school due to covid. Even on the vaccines roll-out, we are falling behind: we have slipped to around 12th best in Europe. Over the past month, there have been double the number of deaths compared with the same time last year. Most worryingly, the current rate of daily deaths would amount to 40,000 deaths per year.

We should be in no doubt that many of those deaths are avoidable. People are dying as a direct result of the Government’s refusal to implement basic public health measures. I am talking about not lockdowns, but the kind of measures that are normal in many other countries. We are not doing them because the Government want to pretend that they can draw a line under covid, but we cannot just wish it away.

Where is the plan to require masks on public transport and in shops? Where is the plan for sick pay at real living wage levels? Where is the plan to tackle high infection rates in schools with the simple measures being asked for by the teaching unions and parents? Where is the plan, more than 20 months on from the start of the pandemic, to give people proper sick pay, as I said, so they are not forced into work when they are ill? Getting those basics right now could still save thousands of lives. We know that because the Government’s own scientists have said so. The Government have a moral duty to act, but instead they are sleepwalking into another deadly winter.

Some of the measures being debated today for the renewal of the powers of the Coronavirus Act are needed, but most of what we are discussing is irrelevant to the debate we need to have to tackle high cases as we go into winter. The Government are not giving MPs the opportunity to debate the wider public health measures that we urgently need. For that reason, I will not be supporting the Government in any vote today.

Time and again during the pandemic, the Government have acted late, and have cost lives by doing so. I urge them to act now and bring in the simple measures that we know can make a difference and save lives, which are masks on public transport and in shops, better ventilation in workplaces, a strategy for tackling high infection rates in schools, and sick pay at real living wage levels for all who need it.

16:13

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

I begin by expressing my gratitude to all the healthcare workers in my constituency and across the rest of the UK. They have had an incredibly hard shift and they have coped with it admirably.

I do not want to rehash comments that have already been made about the Government’s avoidance of scrutiny when putting forward the Act. It cannot be avoided, however, that the legislation being brought forward is confirmation of the indictment of the Government and their failure to manage covid effectively. They have put all their eggs in a single basket—the basket of vaccination—and their insistence on vaccination as a single-strand strategy and the abandonment of the non-pharmaceutical interventions mentioned by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) have allowed the spread of the delta variant throughout our communities. We are now hearing that the roll-out of the booster programme has run into problems, and we are also hearing of the emergence of a new strain of the delta variant that may well be vaccination-resistant, which should cause us all great concern.

Other questions related to this are just as important as the vaccination programme, such as how do we respond to this virus when or if vaccinations stop working? There is lots of research happening in the States. I have friends who are microbiologists working in that field in New York, and they have developed monoclonal antibodies that are very effective in treating covid. That is something I would like to know more about this Government taking a principled stand on.

The other point I want to make is about the use of vaccine passports. The point has been made very clearly today about the risk of their intruding into the lives and privacy of citizens. I would say that, in my view, without a comprehensive infection control strategy in which there is robust testing, non-pharmaceutical interventions and a clear programme of surveillance, vaccine passports are little more than a gimmick. They do not provide any information of great use. They do not tell us whether a person has had a good immune response, whether they are currently infected or whether they are currently infectious, so they are of no real benefit, but are a great intrusion into civil liberties.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I will be very quick. I am not sure where I stand on vaccine passports, but I do know where I stand on the fact that one of my constituents, who was vaccinated in England and then vaccinated in Scotland, cannot go to university courses because the four nations strategy does not actually allow them to talk to each other and she cannot get a pass or a certificate that says she is double vaccinated.

[Neale Hanvey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which I was not aware of until now, but I am certainly not the person to speak to in defence of vaccine passports. Quite frankly, I really think they are a gimmick and a sticking plaster. I would say that we have collectively missed the boat. We have spoken about the risk of influenza infections in the winter and, as that approaches, if we had maintained some form of non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as maintaining the use of masks in public spaces and on public transport, we could have helped manage both the risk of covid and the risk of winter influenza.

In closing, I would just ask the Government to begin to look at and prepare for what strategy they are going to employ should vaccination cease to be an effective treatment for this pandemic.

16:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)]

It is a pleasure to be closing this debate, and I thank hon. Members from all across the House for their contributions today. It is clear from the speeches we have heard—and, indeed, from the fact that the House can meet at full capacity once again—that we have made so much progress in our fight against covid-19. This is thanks to the perseverance and resolve of the British people, and also to our vaccination programme, which has now given first doses to over 85.9% of the population of the UK over the age of 12. It is this life-saving work that has disrupted the once inevitable link between cases, hospitalisations and deaths, and that has allowed us to start carefully reopening our society and our economy once again.

This battle forced us to take unprecedented steps in pursuit of a lethal virus, and the Coronavirus Act has been a vital weapon in our armoury, but we have said throughout our response that we did not want to keep these powers in place for any longer than we have to and that the House performs an essential role in scrutinising the measures every six months.

In 2020, and shortly after the one-year review, we came before Parliament to remove provisions from the Act that were no longer needed. So far 13 of the non-devolved temporary provisions have already been expired and, as pledged in our autumn and winter plan, we are looking to expire even more of these provisions and will lay regulations very soon to make this happen so that we can continue down the path to normal life.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

May I invite my hon. Friend to remind the House and the country that the instincts of the Government sitting behind this Act were benign and in support of public health, not malign and vindictive and trying to erode liberties? These were unprecedented times that required emergency action. Those actions have paid dividends; they were difficult but right. The intention was benign not malign, contrary to what some of our colleagues seem to suggest.

[Maggie Throup]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Government were acting in very difficult times and had to take unprecedented measures, as he rightly said.

The Secretary of State explained the provisions in detail in his opening statement, so I will not repeat those that we will be expiring but they include some of the most stringent measures in the Act such as directing the temporary closure of educational institutions, the detention of potentially infectious people, and enabling Ministers to restrict or prohibit gatherings or events. Meanwhile the powers in the Act that we are retaining are those that are critical to our response to the pandemic; after all, as the Opposition spokesman rightly said, this virus has not gone away. We are facing a difficult winter, a time when we have seen from experience that the virus poses a particular threat, so we are keeping in place provisions that are fundamental to our response, for example to make sure the NHS is properly resourced and to support statutory sick pay for those who are self-isolating.

[Bob Stewart]

I rise to repeat the point I made to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey). It would be very good if the NHSs in all four parts of the kingdom were to get together and ensure that those who have had one vaccination in one part of the kingdom and another in a different part could have a piece of paper that allows them to, for instance, attend a lecture. At the moment, at least one of my constituents is not allowed to go to a lecture because she had one vaccination in England and one in Scotland, and the NHS in Scotland does not recognise the England one and the NHS in England does not recognise the Scottish one. What is going on? It is mad.

[Maggie Throup]

I reassure my right hon. Friend that there are ongoing talks across all the devolved nations and the interoperability of the devices are being looked into; work is under way on that.

[Dr Murrison]

Will my hon. Friend also scrutinise the Bill, as a number of colleagues have mentioned this afternoon, to find those bits that were inserted as expedients but probably need to be refined a little and perhaps given a different statutory basis, such as the certificates in section 19, which for many years have been a nice little money-earner for members of my profession but a burden on the deceased’s estate and which really are not necessary?

[Maggie Throup]

Of course we keep every aspect of the Act under review and will continue to do so.

Members have made a number of compelling points and I would like to address them and respond to some of the questions raised. The shadow spokesman raised the issue of vaccinations and I am pleased to report that 3.6 million booster jabs have been delivered to date over a very short time period. This week sees the launch of a communications campaign on the importance of flu jabs. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced earlier, the national booking service will open for vaccination bookings for young people shortly and letters will be sent to parents and guardians of children aged 12 to 15 over coming weeks inviting them to book the vaccine online or by calling 119. Jabs will continue to be delivered in schools and if the child has already been invited through their school they do not need to act on their invite unless the parents wish to do so. This is a further option for parents to get their children vaccinated.

In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), on 23 September, the Government laid out their plans for parliamentary scrutiny should there be a need for vaccine certification. The Government recognise the vital importance of parliamentary scrutiny. In addition, there was a call for evidence, which closed on 11 October. I trust that my right hon. Friend was able to contribute to that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) raised the issue of care workers. My father was in a care home for seven years. I know from personal experience that care workers become part of the family and play a really important role.

[Mr Harper]

Before my hon. Friend moves on, may I press her a little further? She rightly says that the Government recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. That is welcome, but my question was very specific. The Secretary of State committed to the House’s having to make the decision about vaccine passports, and my question was whether the House would be asked to make that decision in advance and not retrospectively. Can the Minister confirm that the House will be asked to make that decision in advance of any move to implement vaccine passports, and that it will not be asked to approve it retrospectively?

[Maggie Throup]

Covid certification will be brought in under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, which, as my right hon. Friend is aware, allows for emergency measures. We will do our utmost to bring forward the vote in Parliament before any enactment of the need for covid certification.

I return to the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West. A consultation about making vaccination a condition of deployment in the NHS and wider social care closes on 22 October. We will consider all the responses in due course.

[Chris Green]

Does my hon. Friend share my constituents’ perplexity and confusion that the Government think it is suitable to have compulsory vaccination in care home settings—that has been their intention for many weeks—yet they are still confused or undecided as to whether that is equally relevant in the NHS? Carers are going from care settings into the NHS at the moment.

[Maggie Throup]

I reiterate that we are consulting at the moment for the NHS and other social care settings, and we are not moving the dates that we have already set for vaccination as a condition of deployment in care homes.

The hon. Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) raised the issue of unlawful convictions. I reassure them that since April 2020, the Crown Prosecution Service has reviewed all prosecutions under the Coronavirus Act, and it continues to do so. As such, the issue is primarily administrative, rather than one of the wrongful use of powers provided by the Act. That policy of review by the CPS has provided an effective safeguard. All incorrect charges made under the Act and reviewed by the CPS have been overturned, and updated guidance has been issued to the police.

[Dawn Butler]

I wonder whether the Minister will also consider the fines under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act and whether there will be an appeal mechanism. Will she push for that, please?

[Maggie Throup]

I will take the hon. Lady’s comments on board. The progress that has been made with regard to unlawful convictions has been really helpful.

We have come so far in our fight, but we still have a long way to go. This pandemic is not yet over, and the steps we are proposing will give us the support we need to continue our fight against the virus while restoring yet more of our precious freedoms and the important experiences that we really love.

I commend the motion to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The question is Motion No. 4 as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say Aye. [Hon. Members: “Aye.”] Of the contrary, No. [Interruption.] Could I have the Noes again?

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

No!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid I fear the mood of the House is not to have a vote. The right hon. Gentleman would have to rustle up a few more people to really get the sense that we required a vote—

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

The just shall live by faith.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am sure they will. The Ayes have it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 should not yet expire.

Opposition Day

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[7th Allotted Day, First Part]

Supporting Small Business

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

16:30

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the importance of British businesses to high streets and communities across the UK and the exceptional challenges they face due to the pandemic and rising costs; regrets the Government’s current plan to end all temporary support for businesses from April 2022; calls on the Government to support businesses by freezing the business rates multiplier and extending the threshold for small business rates relief from £15,000 rateable value to £25,000 in 2022-23; and further calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to update the House in person before January 2022 on his Department’s assessment of the impact that removing the temporary business support will have on small businesses.

Our high streets are not simply units of economic activity or just a place to buy the things we need. They are an important part of the tapestry of where we live, work and share our everyday lives. It is where people meet, eat, catch up over a cup of tea, bump into old acquaintances, receive a smile or a kind word. My first Saturday job as a teenager was working at a chess shop called the Chess and Bridge Centre on the Euston Road. People would come from miles around not just to buy, but to ask the advice of the owner and those of us who worked there. I learnt a lot. Our shops are as much about people as they are about products, and that is why they must and they will endure. That has been so many people’s experience during the course of the pandemic. As businesses have done everything asked of them—despite advice from Government often chopping and changing—they have bent over backwards to find new ways to serve their customers and to keep their own businesses afloat. We should all be thankful.

Some 2.8 million people are employed in retail in our country. As the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers points out, retail is one of the few sectors that regularly offers flexible opportunities for workers to balance their work alongside caring commitments they might have. Yet, incredibly, there is no Government industrial strategy for the retail sector to work with business to increase wages, skills and productivity. We have allowed an imbalance to be formed where bricks and mortar businesses are at a significant disadvantage to online retailers—online retailers whose warehouses typically attract considerably less business rates and, indeed, may not even pay corporation tax in our country.

One in seven shops remain shuttered after the lifting of pandemic restrictions, with the north of England seeing a higher proportion of closures. A British Retail Consortium survey concluded that business rates were a factor behind two in three shop store closures in the last two years. That cannot be allowed to continue. It should alarm this House that the Office for National Statistics business impacts survey data suggest that 330,000 business, responsible for over 800,000 jobs, are at risk of closure in just the next three months. Even a fraction of those losses will be deeply felt in all our communities.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Some 99.8% of businesses in Lewisham are small and medium-sized enterprises. They are the lifeblood of our high streets and they support our local community, and many have suffered during the pandemic. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s plans to remove temporary support are an unfair cliff edge that could see many viable small businesses go under?

[Rachel Reeves]

I know my hon. Friend is a keen supporter of businesses, including the Kirkdale Bookshop on Sydenham’s high street and Billings butchers. She is a fine steward for the people of Lewisham West and Penge. I cannot offer expertise on the shopping behaviours of all hon. and right hon. Members—[Laughter.]—but some of our shopping behaviours changing does not mean that our high streets should not have a positive future. There is scope for fresh ideas and a renewed relationship with our high streets, but without easing the pressure of business rates for next year, many shops, including many carrying debts from the pandemic, just will not make it. That is why action is needed now.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

Four hundred businesses in Brent are at risk. Our high streets have the most independent shops compared with any other high streets in the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important that the Government reach out and help to support businesses?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She speaks about businesses in Brent, but that could go for so many other constituencies, high streets and town streets across our country. We want businesses to thrive and power our recovery and for every village, town and city across the UK to feel the benefits of a stronger and more resilient economy. Diluting ambition or postponing new thinking comes at a high price for businesses and jobs.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

In Wales, the Welsh Labour Government have helped 70,000 businesses, which will not have to pay any rates until next year, whereas in England over the summer, the support was scaled back. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a stark contrast between Labour in power supporting business and the Conservative party?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour Government in Wales ensured that there would be no business rates at all for the retail and hospitality sectors in Wales for this financial year. That is in stark contrast to the Conservative Government in Westminster, who pushed ahead with restarting business rate bills in June this year.

What is decided in this place has huge implications for businesses, from the kitchen-table start-up to our high streets, industrial parks and commercial giants known across the world. That is one of the reasons it is so worrying that, at this crucial time, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor concocted a new jobs tax to arrive in the spring. Despite all their election promises to cut national insurance contributions, they are actually raising them against the strong advice of businesses and trade unions.

The Conservative Government’s actions will make each new recruit more expensive and increase the costs to business. The decision to saddle employers and workers with the jobs tax takes money out of people’s pockets when our economic recovery is not yet established or secure and only adds to the pressure on businesses after a testing year and a half. When all other costs are going up—the costs of energy and of supplies—these tax rises are only hitting them harder.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that the tourism and hospitality industry has particularly suffered over this period and has had its support taken away? Many travel agents are land-based businesses that do not have the demand coming back because people are still unable to go on holiday. Do they not need additional support, such as a business rates cut and a reversal of the additional tax on them, because they cannot afford to employ people any more?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I know that he is a staunch supporter of businesses in Headingley, Otley and across his Leeds North West constituency. The Government should not break their promises to voters—that should be a given—and he is right to mention the tourism sector, which is so important to so many of our constituencies, whether we represent cities, towns or villages. That is why the decisions of the Labour Government in Wales to support the retail and hospitality sector during this difficult time were so welcomed by businesses in Wales.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

One of the ways that the difference is being felt by people living here in England is through increased levels of debt, which is why I find it so remarkable that the Money and Pensions Service is looking to reduce the funding for face-to-face debt consultations at a time when, because of the lack of support in the economy, people find themselves going further and further into debt. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Money and Pensions Service should look at that again?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is right to make that point. I have had constituents raise concerns about cuts to money advice, for example, through StepChange, the charity based in Leeds. This is linked to the fact that a lot of the funding comes from banks and, due to the formulas set by Government, the funding that goes into debt advice charities is falling at a time when inflation is going up and there is a risk that interest rates might go up, and all the rest of it. She is right, and I hope that Ministers have heard those concerns, which I expect will be echoed by Members across the House.

In November 2019, just weeks before the general election, the Prime Minister told the CBI conference that

“to make sure that the businesses of this country can continue to flourish I am announcing today a package of measures cutting business rates further…particularly for SMEs to help…stimulate the high street.”

Labour welcomed the Government’s review of business rates, which was formally launched 15 months ago, four months into the pandemic. They were right to make the decision to start the review. Businesses, even during those difficult times, found the time to make submissions, and they did so in good faith. The Government promised

“final conclusions in Spring 2021”,

so they are already overdue, and now there is news that the review may be pushed even further into the long grass.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can give us an indication of when the review might finally be published.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am afraid I cannot, but I am interested in whether the hon. Lady will come on to her own proposals for reforming business rates, which she announced at her party conference. I welcome at least a first stab at some reform, but I have a question. She would use the digital services tax, but as I understand it, the multinational agreement on the issue means that that tax will no longer be allowed—it has to be scrapped as part of the corporation tax deal. How does she propose a sixfold increase to a tax that cannot exist?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will come on to those points. It is great that Conservative Members are asking for advice, because we have plenty about how to level the playing field in taxes for businesses. I will come on to points about the global minimum rate of corporation tax, because that is how we can help to level the playing field.

The Chancellor must now complete the review and make the changes that the Government have promised. It would be quite astonishing if the Treasury had time to cost up the Prime Minister’s vanity yacht, yet no time to fulfil its pledge on something as important as reforming business rates.

The Minister may argue that everything has changed because of the pandemic. He would be right: everything has changed, including for businesses. The unfairness in the system has been enlarged, not narrowed, during the past year and a half. Almost 180,000 retail jobs were lost in 2020, according to the Centre for Retail Research, while some online retail profits have soared.

Fundamentally reforming business rates is more important now than ever before. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would welcome confirmation from the Minister that the Government will take the radical action required, which is exactly what businesses are urging them to do in next week’s Budget.

Last week, 42 trade bodies wrote to the Chancellor making clear their view that

“in their current form, our business rates system is uncompetitive…and unfair.”

The British Chambers of Commerce are clear that tinkering around the edges will not do. The British Retail Consortium warns:

“Sky high business rates are closing stores up and down the country and preventing new ones from opening.”

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that our retail centres face a very serious situation? Even thriving retail centres in towns such as Reading, which has the major retail centre for central southern England, are being affected. In our borough, 1,200 small businesses are currently receiving business rates support, which is unheard of. I encourage my hon. Friend to address that point. Does she agree that it is a serious issue?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for speaking up for businesses in Reading that are struggling because of the unfair system of business rates. I expect that, like many other businesses up and down the country, they talk about the unlevel playing field and the unfair competition whereby some businesses pay their business rates—and corporation tax, if they make enough money—but their main competitors are paying a lower level of corporation tax because they have no shop fronts and might not even be registered for corporation tax in this country. That is not right for businesses in Reading, and it is not right for businesses in any of our constituencies.

As the Federation of Small Businesses points out, unlike other forms of business taxation, business rates are a tax that

“hits firms before they’ve even made a pound in turnover”,

let alone in profit. The CBI says that business rates have

“literally become a tax on investment.”

The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers explains that the crucial jobs and services provided to our local communities are under threat.

In each of the last four Conservative Party manifestos, there has been a promise of action on business rates. How many businesses and shops have needlessly closed as a result of the dither and delay in delivering on those promises? In 2011, the Conservative Government brought in Mary Portas to work on ideas to transform the fortunes of the great British high street. Her frustration with Ministers a decade on cannot be dismissed. She has said:

“It’s shameful that they have still not readjusted their thinking on how Amazon and the delivery giants should be paying equivalent rates of tax online…Their slowness in understanding, their tardiness, is ridiculous."

We agree. Labour is unapologetically pro-worker and unapologetically pro-business. We believe in helping businesses large and small, start-ups and the spin-offs from our universities, all of which can provide exciting new growth for the future. In the everyday economy, the fate of shops on our high street matters.

If the Conservative Government will not make these reforms, the next Labour Government will—and more. My core principles are to tax fairly, spend wisely, and grow the economy. That is why Labour will scrap business rates as we know them. We need a much fairer system. Labour will incentivise investment, promote entrepreneurship and efficiency, reward businesses that move into empty premises, and help our high streets to thrive again. We will ease the burden on the bricks-and-mortar businesses, and especially on the smaller businesses. Our party is on the side of entrepreneurs and the communities who want to do something different—who want to start a business and get on in life.

If Labour were in government today, we would freeze business rates next year and extend small business rate relief. We would pay for easing that burden on businesses by raising the UK digital services tax. We would ensure that online companies, including Amazon, which have thrived during this pandemic and made bigger profits than ever were paying their fair share too. But we know that more fundamental reform is needed beyond just one year, and so, in government, Labour would scrap business rates entirely and replace them with a fairer system fit for the 21st century.

We welcome the backing of the G20 and the OECD for a global minimum rate of corporation tax for multinationals. Labour supports its being set at the 21% originally proposed by President Biden and US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, which would have done more to level the playing field between online giants and retail stores and small businesses; but even at 15%, as watered down by the British Chancellor, the global minimum rate of corporation tax will bring in substantial amounts of money that could be used to ease the burden of property taxation on our high streets and for our small and start-up businesses. That is a model of fair business taxation, and that is what a Labour Government will do.

Today’s Opposition day debate on business rates is important for businesses and for our country’s economic recovery. It is about so much more than rates and multipliers: it is about business growth and opportunities in all the places that we are sent here to represent. It is about what we as a country buy, make and sell.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again. She is being very generous. If I heard her correctly, she is going to scrap business rates in the next Parliament. Business rates bring in about £30 billion a year. How will she make up that shortfall? What will be the replacement system to bring in that £30 billion a year?

[Rachel Reeves]

The Chancellor would have a lot more money to play with if he had gone ahead with President Biden’s proposals for a 21% global minimum rate of corporation tax. There are choices in politics, and this Chancellor chose to water down the 21% proposals to 15%. As a result, he has lost £5 billion or £7 billion. We would have used that money to reduce—[Interruption.] We will use that money to reduce the burden of business taxation, and I hope that the Ministers will stand up today and say that they will use the global minimum rate of corporation tax to ease the burden on high streets and small businesses. That is the choice that a Labour Government will make, and we will hear shortly whether it is the choice that this Government will make. [Interruption.] You are not doing anything! The Minister says that we are still short of money, but this Government made the choice to water down proposals that would have brought in £15 billion a year. They made that choice because they are not interested in levelling the playing field on taxes.

In four manifestos now, the Conservatives have said that they would ease the burden of business rates. If the Government want advice ahead of the Budget, they can look at the speech that I wrote for our party conference in which I set out what Labour would do. Instead, they propose to kick this into the long grass and to do nothing to help our high streets and our small businesses. A Labour Government would ease the burden on our businesses and help to create a level playing field with a system of property taxation that asks the retail giants with warehouses and out-of-town centres to pay a bit more, to ease the burden on our small businesses and high streets. That is the right thing to do.

The Budget should be about recovery. The cost to businesses has been going up, supply chains have been disrupted and costs are spiralling as a result of the Government’s unwillingness to invest in gas storage and the skills of British workers or to take any meaningful action to deal with the chaos that has been created. What is the answer from Ministers? A jobs tax and an increase in business rates next spring. Our high streets have been paying a high price for Government inaction for too long. The case for fundamental reform has been made by businesses, by trade unions and by Labour. This is now about the Government’s priorities and their political will. Will they ask more of those online giants, or will they leave the burden of business taxation as it is today, falling on our high street businesses and small businesses? Those are the choices that the Government can and must make in the Budget. We have set out the choices that we would make. It is now time for the Government to act on business rates. Those choices will be available next week, and I hope that the Government will take them.

16:51

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lee Rowley)]

I am grateful to the Opposition for using today to raise such an important matter for Members on both sides of the House, and I welcome this opportunity to debate it. In that spirit, let us start with where we can agree.

We absolutely agree that British businesses are hugely important to our high streets and communities across the United Kingdom. I have seen this in my first few weeks as the Minister for industry, speaking to and visiting businesses and business representatives up and down the country. I have seen it over my four years as a Member of Parliament, as all other Members will have done, discussing how small businesses can thrive and how, although high streets are changing, they remain the linchpin of our local communities. More broadly, I have seen it as the son of a sole trader who spent 40 years in business in his local community. To take the shadow Chancellor’s point about first jobs, I have also seen it as somebody who had a job on the high street in Chesterfield with an estate agent and who spent his dinner hours stocking a newsagent’s so that they could continue to trade.

Secondly, we can agree that we have been through an exceptionally difficult time. The pandemic impacted every single one of us at an extraordinary time of our lives, necessitating changes in the way we live, work and play. None of us had anticipated any of this prior to March 2020.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, let us just work out where we agree before we start talking about where we might not do so.

We did all this together as a nation and as communities, because we knew how important it was to get our society through these dark times. We can also agree that businesses faced particularly acute challenges. The challenge of 2020 and early 2021 was unprecedented for businesses. They had to close for periods, they were unable to trade in some instances, they had to change the ways in which they did business very quickly and then they returned to work. I am sure that everyone in the House—I know that the shadow Chancellor shares this view—has been humbled, as I have been, by the resilience of workers and entrepreneurs to keep their businesses going. They are the ones who have been straining every sinew on construction sites, serving us in shops and delivering vital goods. They have demonstrated an incredible level of resolve that we have never seen in peacetime, ingenuity and flexibility that we have never dreamed of and resilience that should make us all proud.

More broadly, we can also agree that business taxation requires review. That is why the Chancellor announced a review of business rates; it is why we have consulted on numerous changes to the existing scheme, although this was not acknowledged by the Opposition; and it is why the Valuation Office Agency is undertaking the latest revaluation, which will take place in 2023.

[Mike Amesbury]

I am sure it has not escaped the Minister’s attention that the Government have been in power for 11 years. This is not only about the coronavirus emergency. Businesses in my community, in Manor Park and Runcorn Shopping City, are desperate to move forward. Business rates are a broken system. Stop the dither and delay and get on with it—not another review but solid reform based on income going through the door. That is fair.

[Lee Rowley]

We have seen the Government make many changes over the past decade that have improved business conditions in this country and allowed businesses to continue to progress, and we will continue to do that. I know that ministerial colleagues will come forward with proposals in due course.

On the motion before us and the shadow Chancellor’s speech, it would be churlish not to recognise the extraordinary amount of support that the Government have already provided to business. Even as someone who prefers to focus on outputs and achievements in our country, I accept that the past 18 months were necessarily about inputs and keeping businesses going until they could properly trade again. To do that, we offered hundreds of billions of pounds of support from the taxpayer to provide one of the world’s most generous and comprehensive economic responses to the pandemic.

We enabled 1.3 million employers across the UK to furlough up to 11.5 million jobs. There were 1.6 million Government-backed loans, representing more than £79 billion of support. We paid out almost £14 billion in support to around 5 million self-employed people. We cut VAT for the hospitality and tourism sector. We waived billions of pounds of business rates for long periods at the height of the pandemic. And we brought in a range of regulatory easements to help businesses.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

I ask for the Minister’s advice. One of the most frustrating things about business rates is when a business asks for some flexibility and it is difficult to speak to the right person. A number of businesses in my constituency want some flexibility on their business rates. They go to the council, but the council only collects the tax. They go to the valuation office, which only does the valuation. There is no system to appeal against business rates at the moment. Will the Minister address that in his speech?

[Lee Rowley]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I acknowledge the challenge. There is always a balance to be struck. This level of detail is perhaps slightly away from the motion, but I would be happy to discuss it separately.

We should not forget all the support that we have provided over such a sustained period, and we should not strip this debate of that context. Now our task is to make sure that businesses, large and small, have the opportunity, the talent and the ability to unleash their full potential, which is where I am afraid I will have to diverge again from the Opposition and their remarks today.

The extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic required an extraordinary response from the Government, and we delivered that extraordinary response, but it did not come without cost. Whether we like it or not, providing such a comprehensive and decisive economic response has dramatically increased public borrowing. Government debt has exceeded the size of the UK economy for the first time in more than 50 years. It was an appropriate and proportionate strategy, when we were faced with a real and immediate crisis, to support businesses and allow them to ready themselves for when the recovery came, but over the medium term it is clearly not sustainable to continue borrowing at these levels.

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

[Lee Rowley]

I hope the hon. Lady will be able to answer that point.

[Emma Hardy]

Actually, I was hoping to put to the Minister the same question that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on the issue of debt and debt advice.

The Money and Pensions Service is changing the system that it operates by moving towards having call centres rather than having as many face-to-face appointments for people who are struggling with debt. This has been an incredibly difficult year and people are finding themselves in higher levels of debt, so will the Minister comment on the support that is available to help people who are struggling right now? Will he be speaking to the Money and Pensions Service about its decision to move towards remote consultations rather than face-to-face consultations?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution, and I know she has a clear interest in this. I fear it is going slightly away from the discussion we are having, but I am happy to have discussions with her separately. I know that my colleagues will continually communicate with and consult people in this important policy area.

As I was saying, whether we like it or not there has been a large change in public borrowing. When we were faced with the crisis, we took action. But as the pandemic starts to subside, it is vital that we make moves to return to a position of strong and sustainable finances. Ultimately—this is what the Labour party never wants to acknowledge, and it can state that it is unapologetically pro-business as much as it wishes—there can be no strength for businesses in a country where a Government have lost control of the public finances. The shadow Chancellor invited us to look at her speech at last week’s Labour party conference, which I did; she made much of the “everyday economy”. Businesses in the everyday economy will never be able to thrive long term on policies that have no regard to the macroeconomic situation or no clear way of being funded. Neither before nor in today’s debate has the Labour party provided any meaningful explanation of how it will pay for abolishing business rates.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

rose—

[Lee Rowley]

I am sorry, but I am going to make progress.

Entrepreneurs who take difficult decisions and face challenges every day on how to make their businesses grow will never fully succeed in a country that refuses to acknowledge that similar national choices are ultimately required. Back during the pandemic, we were clear that support was necessary, but we were also clear that it would be temporary. Even so, we have helped and we continue to help businesses during this recovery period.

We have been open for business for months now but we continue to help businesses recover: business rates relief will continue well into 2022, which is even acknowledged in the motion, meaning that eligible businesses will not have paid rates at all for 15 months and will have had a significantly reduced rate for a further nine months; there has been more than £2 billion of discretionary business grant funding to local authorities, including a top-up of nearly half a billion pounds, which is open until March 2022; we have had the recovery loan scheme, which allows businesses in the UK to continue to benefit from Government-backed finance until the end of the year; we have our pay as you grow scheme, which gives bounce back loan borrowers the flexibility to tailor repayments; and we have the lower rate of VAT, the £600 million start-up loans fund, the super deduction and an extension of the commercial lease evictions moratorium.

Just as they do naturally, British businesses are getting back on their feet and doing what they do best. We know that this is a difficult time and has been an extraordinarily difficult time, but I pay tribute to businesses for being able to get going again. A strong growth story is being shown by the level of unemployment, which has fallen for six months in a row and is now below 5%— lower than the levels in France, America, Canada, Italy and Spain; one of the fastest recoveries of any major economy in the world; business confidence being up; and job vacancies growing for eight consecutive months and at a record high.

The Labour party will never admit this, but the UK is a great place to do business. We have some of the lowest corporation taxes in the G20, the kind of lean regulation that puts us in the global top 10 for the ease of doing business and a highly skilled workforce. Next year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will publish an enterprise strategy, which will set out how we want to revive Britain’s spirit of enterprise and help more people start and scale a business.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

The Minister mentions the reduced rate of VAT, which has been welcomed by a number of businesses in my constituency. May I invite him to comment on whether the Government have considered an extension to that? Many businesses in my constituency have informed me that that reduced rate has allowed them to invest in not only their businesses, but their employees’ wages—I am sure that is something we can agree on.

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to make policy in an Opposition day debate, but I will step back from that, given that it is well above my pay scale.

Let me come back to the point about the UK being a good place to do business. It is easy to see why the UK is consistently home to one of the largest and most resilient economies in the world. All of this underlines precisely why the UK has long been a great place to do business and will continue to be so. That is why we are seeing so much excitement from the rest of the world, with investors here right now at the global investment summit. That shows just how attracted companies are to the business-friendly environment that we have.

The Government’s track record shows that we have been there for small and bigger businesses since the start of the pandemic; that we are now here to support them through the recovery; and that we will continue to create the conditions that will allow them to grow, thrive and innovate in future, as part of a dynamic, flexible market economy that supports private enterprise, backs entrepreneurs and recognises the importance of wealth creators in local communities.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lee Rowley]

The first building block for doing that—Labour Members should listen, given that they are all so keen to intervene—is to ensure that we have a strong and sustainable economy, built on strong and sustainable public finances and with policies that are funded. By working together, we can then continue to ensure that Britain is the best place in the world to do business, both now and in future.

17:05

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I commend the Labour Front-Bench team for bringing it to the House and the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), for her well-informed and often thought-provoking speech. As a lot of Back Benchers wish to contribute to the debate and much of the substance of the motion concerns devolved matters, I shall not detain the House for too long.

It is important that we recognise the fundamental part played by small businesses in our economy—the economy of the United Kingdom and all its constituent nations. I am reminded that many years ago my good friend Alasdair Morgan, who served with distinction in this place and in the national Parliament of Scotland, addressed a meeting about economic regeneration and pointed out that there were twice as many small businesses in his constituency as there were unemployed people. This was in the days when the unemployment figures were not fiddled, so the numbers were a lot higher than they are just now. Alasdair pointed out that if every small business could be helped to take on less than half a full-time employee, we could abolish unemployment. Instead of helping small businesses to increase their workforce, though, we are far too often faced with a Government who take steps that seem deliberately designed to make it harder for small businesses to take on additional employees.

Small businesses face structural problems that bigger businesses do not. Although we hear a lot of rhetoric from the Government about supporting small businesses, a lot of the specific difficulties that they face seem to get ignored. I confess that I never appreciated one such difficulty until several businesses in my constituency contacted me independently of each other. What they all had in common was that they had been taken to the cleaners by dodgy suppliers, because the suppliers knew that even a small business that is not much bigger than a single-person operation is regarded as a business and so has no consumer protection. Tech companies and telephone supplies companies—which tended to be the worst, by the way—understood that they could fleece small businesses and get away with it, whereas if they tried the same tactics with individuals, the consumer protection laws, although not ideal, would protect those individuals from being too badly damaged. A couple of long-established small businesses in my constituency were brought very close to closure purely for that reason. The Government might want to look into that.

Business-to-business enterprise and business-to-business commerce tends to operate on the basis that it is between two equal partners, but when a two-person or three-person operation deals with a multinational corporation with a turnover of billions, that is not an equal contest or an equal deal. Perhaps, in the same way as we need to protect individual citizens from being taken advantage of by bigger suppliers or businesses, we need to do more to give smaller businesses some kind of consumer protection.

Smaller businesses are much worse affected when there is a recruitment crisis, as there is just now. The Government blame covid, but everybody knows that Brexit is as much to blame as covid. If a company has a workforce of 100 and loses two or three people, it still has 97% of its operation; if a company has a workforce of three and loses a person, that can make the entire business unsustainable and unviable. The clear message that we get from small businesses and organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses is that the labour shortages we see in key sectors of the economy just now have not yet been adequately addressed. I am not convinced that the Government have even adequately recognised them.

It is all very well to say, “Isn’t it great to have all these vacancies?” but if the people who are looking for work do not have the skills that are needed for those vacancies, or if there are reasons why they cannot take on the work in those jobs, it is quite possible to have very high vacancy levels. Businesses are struggling because they cannot fill those vacancies, and, at the same time, a lot of people are struggling because they cannot get a job that fits with their commitments or responsibilities outside the workplace.

Much of the debate so far has focused on the retail sector, partly because the traditional picture of the high street is one where there is a lot of retail activity, most of it generated by small independent retailers. That is a great thing to have in a town, but how many of us could walk down any high street in our constituency today and see more than half of the existing businesses independently owned and run, never mind locally owned and run?

There has been a huge shift in ownership in the retail sector, as there has been elsewhere. The sad thing is that, when times get tough, a big business, which has no soul in the community, is likely to clear out, whereas the smaller business, locally grown and locally based, is much more likely to dig in and to hang on in there for as long as it possibly can. That is why we will often find that, when things get difficult in the retail sector, the small locally owned shops will try to stay open for as long as they can, whereas the big chains will sacrifice 100, 200 or even 300 properties and the jobs that go with them at the stroke of a pen without a thought to the devastation that they are leaving behind.

I have a particular situation in Glenrothes. To the best of my knowledge, it is the only town in the United Kingdom where the high street is shut at night. A stroke of genius by the then Conservative Government in the 1990s when the development corporation was being wound up was that they sold what the Americans would call a shopping mall to private owners, and it has been struggling ever since. We do not have a night-time economy because the high street is shut. People cannot get in. If they are in and the doors are locked, they cannot get back out.

In spite of that, there are still some remarkable success stories in the Kingdom shopping centre in Glenrothes. I was delighted to pay a visit to Jessop Jewellers to congratulate the owner on their 50th anniversary in the one premises in the town. I can highly recommend their products as well by the way, although I may have made a mistake by telling the owner that I am now only a few years away from my ruby wedding, so I think she may be going to contact Mrs Grant about that in the not too distant future.

A lot of the focus today has been on non-domestic rates. Clearly, because that is devolved, the specific way in which the rates system operates in England does not apply in Scotland. For a number of years, the Scottish Government have had the most generous and most supportive non-domestic rates scheme anywhere in the United Kingdom. We had small business support, whereby small businesses did not pay any rates at all for years, before it was introduced in other parts of the United Kingdom. We still have greater support for our small businesses than any other part of the United Kingdom.

My message to the Government, and indeed to the Opposition should they be in a position to move into government in the near future, is to continue to support small businesses in England, whether through supporting the domestic rates scheme or something else. That then generates additional funding through Barnett consequentials for the devolved Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and allows those Parliaments to support our small businesses at the same time.

We could quite easily have filled this Chamber with a debate that would have run for four or five days if we had invited every Member of Parliament to come in and describe the exact situation for businesses in their constituency. I know that there have been a number of contributions along those lines from Labour Back Benchers already today, but the simple fact is that the party that used to be the party of small business is not recognised as that any more, certainly not by small businesses themselves. I suspect that, in their heart of hearts, it is not recognised as a party of small business by its own members and its own voters. It has lost sight of the part that small businesses have played in creating the economy that we have just now. It has lost sight of the fact that, without small businesses, we cannot have a successful and sustainable economy. [Laughter.] I can hear the laughter from the Conservative Back Benchers—that sums up their attitude. It is the attitude that a lot of small businesses feel they have received from this Government over the past two or three years—[Interruption.]

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) has just said, it was not laughter; it was astonishment. I have been in business for 30 years. Not every businessperson I meet votes Conservative, but the vast majority do, and I have not heard anybody say what the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) has just said—that the Conservative party is no longer the party of small business. Not only that, but there is huge support for what this Government have done over the last 18 months in supporting those businesses through the worst crisis to hit business in the last 100 years.

[Peter Grant]

If the hon. Member does not understand what the Federation of Small Businesses thinks about his Government tearing up their manifesto promise and increasing the burden of national insurance, if he does not understand what small businesses are saying about the impact that Brexit has had on them, if he does not understand that the energy crisis that the United Kingdom still faces, with massively increasing energy costs that then increase costs for every single business on these islands, and if Conservative Members do not understand that all those things are purely the result of their party’s policies, each and every one of which is devastating for the wellbeing of small business, then we have to wonder why on earth they are still in Government.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Perhaps we could mention one example of this Government helping small business: the requirement for outsourcing agencies, such as National Highways and Network Rail, to put a third of all their contracts into the hands of small businesses. Indeed, Network Rail is up to that third already. Is that not a tangible example of this Government doing something to support small businesses?

[Peter Grant]

Well, it was not quite the way that things were done with all the personal protective equipment contracts and other covid contracts. Of course, there is a better way to do it than that. Rather than telling the health service that a fraction of all its privatised contracts have to go to small businesses, why not say to the health service, “Don’t privatise it. Do it yourself.”? The public would get a better, cheaper and more efficient service, which is exactly what we are seeing with the NHS in Scotland since the SNP banned the privatisation of our services all together.

If the Conservatives want to see an example of how to support small businesses, they do not need to look beyond these islands. They need to look beyond this Chamber, beyond this city and beyond this country to some of the other countries that are supposed to be equal partners in this Union. If they do, they will see examples of Governments—I commend also some of the Welsh Government initiatives mentioned earlier—who do not just talk the talk on supporting small business, but who walk the walk as well. That might be something to do with the fact that those Governments are not run by parties whose coffers are swollen to obscene degrees by people who have made their money running big businesses—very often, big businesses that ran small businesses into the ground.

The linkage between the impact of non-domestic rates and other taxes and Government policies on small businesses is clearly complex, so it is not possible to say that simply changing the non-domestic rates scheme on its own will fix the problem. I, for one, do not like the idea of using an imaginary property valuation as a significant feature in deciding somebody’s tax bill, whether it is an individual’s council tax or a business’s non-domestic rates burden. The tax base is far too narrow on far too many businesses. We are taxing things that might have been the right things to tax 500 years ago, but which are not the right things to tax now.

Most importantly, as was mentioned by the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), we have to move to a situation where the tax is due and is paid where the profits are made. We cannot have companies that make substantial profits on the hard work, diligence and expertise of people in the United Kingdom, but where all the profits are magicked away to some offshore tax haven so that no tax is ever paid. The Government have it in their hands to change that. They need to move a lot quicker to do that. Doing so would not only help to plug the gap in the public finances, but would give small businesses a chance to compete on fair and equal terms with the bigger competitors. I can say, for a lot of the small businesses in my constituency, let them compete on equal terms with the big boys; they will take them on and, as often as not, they will beat them, and they will make sure that profits from that success are reinvested in their local communities.

As with so many other things that we debate in this Chamber, I have indicated the successes that the Government of Scotland have had with the powers they have. Others have referred to some of the successful initiatives that the Government of Wales have introduced with the limited powers that they have. With increased powers for those devolved Parliaments will come increased success and increased wellbeing for the citizens of those nations. The only way that small businesses in Scotland will have a long-term, secure and profitable future is when the decisions that affect them are taken by a Government who are accountable to the people of Scotland and to no one else.

17:19

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is an absolute pleasure to contribute to this debate. I thank the shadow Chancellor for laying this motion, which gives us an opportunity to talk about business and the support that we have for business in our communities. I will certainly be doing so, as well as speaking to the reform of business rates, which I have had a long interest in since coming here in 2015.

Before I do so, let me respond to the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant). I had the pleasure of being up in Edinburgh for a few days over the weekend, and it was very sad to see that not just Jenners on Princes Street but shop after shop had closed. In my view, that demonstrates that across the UK changing trends are causing people to shop differently, which is having a huge impact on our high streets. It is down to this Government, and indeed all Administrations, to support their high streets. That does not just mean expecting the shopping of the past to return, because it will not, but looking at how we can turn these units back into retail, which gives more footfall within the cities and towns and helps, not least, those who are perhaps older and do not wish to live as far out. Those boarded-up shops may be the responsibility of the changing trends or may actually have something to do with the hon. Gentleman’s own Administration as well.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend enjoyed his trip to Scotland. Many businesses in my constituency are facing the challenges imposed by the Scottish Government because of their policy on business rates, but does he agree that the particular challenge they are facing is the continued uncertainty around another independence referendum, which is putting huge pressure on their plans and their economic prospects?

[Huw Merriman]

I do agree. Interestingly, the CBI has talked about the challenge on business rates because every three or five years there is a revaluation and business does not have the certainty it needs. I think in Hackney there was a change of about 46%. The CBI recognised that the uncertainty of this type of big-shock fiscal events can absolutely impact business’s ability to plan and invest in the future. A referendum on the whole future as to whether Scotland will be part of the UK, its biggest trading partner, must surely have some impact.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about Princes Street, did he manage to make it along to the new, shiny, marvellous St James Quarter, where a number of the businesses he talked about relocated to? He is making a point in isolation about one street in the country, not the entire nation, and it is possibly unwise to draw too many conclusions from one street.

[Huw Merriman]

The hon. Member makes a fair point, because two out of four businesses have relocated to St James Quarter, with the interestingly shaped top that is called things that I would not repeat in this Chamber, but Jenners, a classic department store that is not relocating, is a good example of a casualty of changing trends.

It would be absolutely churlish not to recognise what this Government have done over the past 18 months. I represent a constituency in Sussex that is absolutely reliant in employment terms on small businesses in leisure, tourism and retail. The constituency I represent has businesses that were among the 750,000 that were given a business rate holiday. Furlough is not just keeping the employees going but making sure that they are returning back to the businesses. Some 15,300 workers in my constituency, about a third, were reliant on furlough to keep them going. When I went round to visit those businesses last summer—it had been very difficult for us to meet, but the changes in the summer allowed us to do that—they were absolutely of the view that had it not been for the Government’s support, their businesses would have shut down and their employees would have been made redundant. Everything that I am about to say has to be put in the context of the fact that this Government have absolutely supported business. I absolutely refute the point that the Conservative party is no longer the party of business; it absolutely is and it will always have the champions of business on these Benches.

In the six years since I have been a Member of this place, I have always championed the need to reform business rates. If we look across the G7, we see that the UK has the largest property taxes. They are a tax on jobs and a tax on business, and I would like to see them reformed. Over those years, we have had a number of reviews, and we are waiting on one at the moment. I would dearly like to see business rates replaced. The CBI is right when it says that business rates are a tax on business and jobs and lead to uncertainty. I see the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) nodding her head.

What is also important is that I stand for fiscal responsibility. Something has to come in place of business rates that brings in the exact same yield. With respect to the shadow Chancellor, when she was pushed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on how the £20 billion-plus that business rates bring in as revenue would be replaced, she was only able to give a figure of about £7 billion. That leads to a big deficit. That means there would either have to be public spending cuts to make up for the shortfall, or we would have to go into further debt, which is no good for business or the individual.

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes the point about the shortfall if we get rid of business rates. Those on the Opposition Benches also talk about the national insurance rise, which is raising £36 billion to go into the health service and social care. Is he as unclear as I am on how they would replace that money, as well?

[Huw Merriman]

Yes, I am. I do not want to go too off-piste in terms of the subject of this debate, but I certainly recall that when the Labour party rightly injected funds into the NHS back in 2001, it also agreed that national insurance was the best way to fund it. I have heard it said that wages are not growing at the same rate now as they were then. Actually, if we take a look back, we find that they are growing faster now, which seems to refute that argument.

When it comes to the business of running Government, we have to take these serious decisions and make sure that we do not continue to see this country going ever further into debt. When it comes to business rate replacement, which I would advocate, we need to look at something that brings in the same revenue, and I am left with the view I had previously: we can look at a tax on turnover or sales, but ultimately the simplest way of dealing with it is looking at the VAT system. We all know full well that business rates end up getting channelled all the way through to the individual consumer in any event, but some consumers do not have to pay, particularly with the online side of things, because business rates are not levied there as much as they perhaps are on the high street.

We should level with the public and say, “At the moment, business rates are coming on to your bills, but they are a tax on jobs.” If we were to put the tax instead on VAT or other forms, it would be a lot more transparent, a lot fairer and, most of all, it would make it economically viable for businesses to expand their space and employ more people. If we did that, we would level with the British public and see further investment from business. I do not agree with the motion, although I agree with the Opposition for bringing it forward. It is great that we are debating the ideas, and I welcome that from those on the shadow Front Bench, but I gently prod that ultimately we have to see a payment of like for like.

17:28

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Both the Minister and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) have said that they really want to do something about business rates, and they have—[Interruption.] I know the hon. Member said he wanted to do it. They are challenging us to come up with a way of replacing the revenue, but they cannot come up with one themselves. I want to know what their plan is as an alternative. Perhaps the Minister or his colleague, depending on who is winding up the debate, will tell us the Government’s plan for doing so. As the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) said, this has been going on for a very long time. The Government have been talking about reviewing business rates for a very long time.

I ran a business for many years. Twenty years ago, I took a lease out on a commercial premises, and I was staggered by how much the business rates were. In fact, many in this Chamber pay business rates on their constituency premises. I had to pay for that, whether or not I had any income coming in the door. That fixed cost of doing business is the challenge. We face inequity in the system of business taxation, which is why it is so out of date and needs to be replaced when set against the competition from the online giants, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West rightly said earlier.

More than 450 businesses in the borough of Sefton alone face going out of business as a result of problems that have been exacerbated during the covid crisis. They need action on business rates for the longer term, not just now. They need the kind of support that the Welsh Government are giving, as we have heard, to be extended by the Government now. They need longer-term reform and, in the end, the scrapping of the business rates system if they are to thrive.

The Minister made much of international comparisons. I wanted to intervene on him; it is a shame he did not let me. He named a number of countries that have significantly lower business property taxes than this country, so any business in this country that wants to compete with them faces an immediate competitive disadvantage. In Germany, business property taxes are four times lower than they are in this country. For our manufacturers to compete with that is very difficult, so they face a significant disadvantage.

On the question of how that would be paid for, I ask the Minister how other countries can raise business taxes with much lower property taxes. What can we learn from them? We are so far behind because we have the highest business taxes of any major country in the world, according to the OECD. That has to be addressed.

It is absolutely right that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West has brought this debate forward today, especially as businesses face huge debts as a result of covid. The last thing they need is a business rates bill dropping through their door and adding to that pressure. I will give a couple of constituency examples. MSP is in the events and creative sector and is owned by my constituent Lisa Richards, who makes the point that she now has huge debts. The problem is that the support during covid was simply not enough to avoid those debts going up—it is a story being told again and again. Businesses such as MSP need ongoing support. I hope that we will hear something next week to deal with that in the immediate term, but they need longer-term support too, which is why the overhaul of business rates is such an important part of the picture. Unless they get that support, they will struggle to play their part in the recovery.

There are high street businesses such as Coulson Flooring, which is run by another constituent who has to pay his business rates whether he is making any money or not. It is a thriving business that was hit hard by covid, just like everybody else on the high street. He needs that longer-term support too. That is the case for all those 450-plus businesses in my borough alone and for businesses in all our constituencies up and down the country, so I am delighted that we are taking the issue forward as a party.

Frankly, to those Conservative Members who say that their party still has the mantle of the party of business, I say that I think every business in the country knows the Prime Minister’s attitude, which was summed up by one short four-letter word. That is a topic he has returned to again and again. They collectively need to take a close look at themselves, the behaviour of the man who leads them and his attitude towards business and towards supporting our entrepreneurs, our wealth creators and those people who provide employment for so many of our constituents.

It is essential that an alternative system is found. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West has come forward with some credible alternatives for an interim approach that uses an increase in the digital services tax as a windfall and, in the long term, looks at the international approach to corporation tax and an overhaul of that. To answer the question of how we replace the £30 billion that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned, we have to work with the business community and the trade unions. We have to work in partnership to find alternatives that are workable in this country and internationally. That has to be the way forward.

At the moment, we have a curb on investment as a number of business groups have made clear. It is something that Mike Hawes of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has pointed out. He has said that the current arrangements are “overdue an overhaul” and that

“anyone wanting to invest in new equipment—especially green technologies”,

which are crucial to the car industry—

“sees their business rates rise”

which

“is a perverse disincentive to investment and productivity improvement”.

He puts it so well. It is true in manufacturing, and it is true in retail and in our high streets, which face competition from the out-of-town and online giants.

It is essential, if we are to recover for those high streets, businesses and communities, that we see this turned around. Such an approach has the support of the trade unions. With the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, as the union representing shop workers, in exactly the same place as the shop owners, we potentially have a partnership. The only part of that partnership missing at the moment is for the Government to step up.

We have shown the way forward, and the CBI has shown the way forward. Tony Danker of the CBI has now said:

“More than half of business investment is subject to business rates; this unfair, uncompetitive system has become a tax on investment that simply isn’t fit for purpose.”

He has also said:

“The Labour Party should be applauded for grasping the nettle and putting forward a pro-growth, pro-investment package of reforms that will reflect our green ambitions, spur the economic recovery”.

That is the right way forward.

We have business looking at us and saying that we were the party that came out of the conference season—and this is the word of the Federation of Small Businesses, not mine—with a “pro-business” agenda and proposals that would help the economy, not the Conservatives. I want to see from the Chancellor next week some concrete details about the package the Minister talked about very nicely in his speech, otherwise it is our approach to which the business community is increasingly going to look. It is our approach that people will be voting on in the next general election, and unless this Government act, we will when we come in.

17:36

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), and I agree with him that this conversation should be had with the engagement of business in order to find a solution. I have tried to do that over the last few years when we have debated this issue time and again. Of course, I have been in business for a number of years—three decades—and the No. 1 thing any business wants is a fair and level playing field on which to compete. That is not just good for businesses; it is also good for consumers. The best thing to drive down prices and drive up service is a healthy, competitive market—a free market. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; our business did occupy a couple of hundred shops up and down the country.

There is no doubt that business rates were built for a completely different era. In this conversation, we talk about how business rates are actually making life difficult for some businesses, and that is true of course. They are additional costs that they could do without, but the No. 1 thing driving problems for businesses is consumer choice—the choice to shop online rather than to shop in the high street. Nevertheless, I think everyone in this Chamber wants to make sure the high street stays lively. Of course, it will change—its make-up will change—and we still want to see a high street at the end of it, but the problem is driven principally by consumer choices. As I say, the business rates system was built for a completely different era, when pretty much every part of commerce and trade was done from a premises.

The other thing to say is that in the whole discussion of business rates reform, we talk a lot about retail, and of course retail is particularly hard hit by some of the changes to consumer demand, but this is not just about retail. It is also about the competition of restaurants and takeaways—often with the dark kitchens of Deliveroo which, again, have a different business make-up—and a different proportion of turnover that is basically driven by business rates. It is the same in my own business, the estate agents and lettings business, where we increasingly have competition trading online, and in plenty of other sectors, not least the travel sector, so we cannot look at this issue purely in the context of retail.

I welcome the fact that the Opposition have brought forward this debate and have made some suggestions about how we reform, because we need to look at some suggestions. The Treasury has of course suggested in its consultation a couple of things we would look at—a land value tax, which it pretty much discounts, and VAT, which I will talk about shortly—but it seems to centre around an online sales tax. That would be problematic, further complicating what is an already very complex tax system. An online sales tax is also a crude measure, because on the face of it, it will not have input and output, which VAT does, dealing with different profitability margins that businesses operate on, so I am not sure it could even work. We already have a sales tax in this country, VAT, and it would be far simpler to use VAT as the mechanism.

The Opposition suggest lifting the threshold for paying business rates for a temporary period and then increasing digital services tax sixfold. That can only be a very temporary solution, because digital services tax has to be eradicated when we introduce the multinational agreement on corporation tax. Also, when this Government brought in the digital services tax to try to level the playing field, Amazon added it straight on to prices for consumers. Those on the shadow Front Bench might know that, because of the way the digital services tax had to be drafted, it does not even apply to Amazon’s direct sales; it applies only to marketplace activity, or third-party sellers. So the Opposition proposal does not even hit Amazon’s direct sales by using a digital services tax. For all those reasons I think that is therefore the wrong thing to do.

It is right to look at this issue completely freshly again, but I do not think property taxes are a solution for replacing the £30 billion of revenue. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) was very clear in his comments, although others might not agree that he was clear. The simple way to deal with this issue is to add about 3p to VAT, increasing it from 20p to 23p. That would, on the face of it, increase the take from VAT to about £20 billion a year, which gets us quite a long way towards replacing business rates revenue; and it is also simple for retailers.

John Lewis has three sales channels: not just high street and online, but click and collect as well. With an online sales tax, John Lewis and everybody else would have to decide how a product is sold and apply online sales tax just to those sold online or by click and collect, depending on how we draft the legislation. That would be hugely complex, whereas VAT is brutally simple: everybody pays the same rates; everybody is on a fair and level playing field; it is simple and quick—although I accept that none of this conversation is easy, as simple and easy are two different things.

The final area we should look at in this conversation is far more controversial: the VAT threshold. Businesses currently do not have to register for VAT until their taxable turnover reaches £85,000. We should look at reducing that significantly. In Germany the threshold is £20,000. The £85,000 threshold is a real disincentive for businesses to grow. Lots of businesses stay under the threshold as they do not want to register for VAT because of the costs to the business. That distorts the marketplace. We should have a full review of how VAT operates in terms of its level and replacing business rates with it, and look at the threshold, because that would overnight take away one of the major blockages to productivity in our economy—it stops businesses recruiting extra people, taking on extra premises and opening longer. Indeed, many businesses close for a portion of the year to try to stay under the threshold.

This fair and level playing field needs to be in place right across the economy. Keep it simple, keep it stable; that is what businesses want. I hope the Minister on duty and Treasury Ministers look at this and take a broader view of how we get our businesses taxes right.

17:44

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the thoughtful contribution by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake).

I start by congratulating HullBID on winning its recent ballot. It had an 87% turnout from businesses in the city centre, and it won the vote by 81%. I am sure that every Member of this House would be delighted to have those percentages. I congratulate Kathryn Shillito, the executive director of HullBID, on her amazing work throughout the pandemic, offering advice, grants and financial support for businesses right in the city centre.

That support and advice has been needed more than ever, because we see from the data that more than 197 businesses in Hull West and Hessle are at risk, despite the excellent work that is going on in the city. Our independent retail scene is thriving. As some of the bigger names are moving out, we are home-growing our own talent and our own businesses in our own city. Trinity market is full of exciting independent shops, as is Hepworth arcade, and we were shortlisted for the Great British High Street awards just last year—I am sure they will look on us favourably again next year.

Although there has been some disagreement during the debate, there has been so much consensus, and there seems to be a consensus that the business rates system that we have at the moment is simply not fit for purpose. In my city of Hull, the high street has moved from one location to another, but the rating system for business rates has not moved with it. One part of the city centre used to be the thriving area where everyone shopped. It is now completely different, yet businesses there still pay higher business rates, because those rates are set on an old-fashioned and outdated model. That must change.

I want to mention Ye Olde White Harte pub in Hull, which I highly recommend to everyone. It has been there since 1550, and it is famous for its “plotting room”, where the people of Hull apparently got together to decide that they would turn away Charles I when he came to try to enter the city, thus starting the English civil war. I have no reason to start a civil war right here, right now, but I do want to point out the unfairness of the business rates and taxation system that that pub is under. When I visited, its landlord told me that its rates are based on “fair maintainable trade”, which has been criticised for lacking transparency, being open to manipulation and being biased in favour of pub companies and against landlords. I wrote to the Minister about this issue, raising the case of the White Harte, and I hope that he will review my letter again.

However, if we waited for the Government to fix the problems in Hull, we would be waiting an awfully long time. As I proved with my story about Ye Olde White Harte, we have nothing in my city if not an independent and fighting spirit, so we are coming to our own solutions and solving our own problems. I have been working closely with businesses in Hull to champion the city as the capital of home working and remote working, so it was very disappointing to read on the front page of one newspaper that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor want everyone to go back to the offices where they worked before. That seems to me to be re-establishing the inequality that existed previously. Why?

Why do people have to go back to the cities and offices in which they worked before? Why not look elsewhere, at other parts of our beautiful country? Look at the city of Hull, where we have the fastest broadband and affordable standards of living. We are right by the ferry—if someone wants to pop off to Holland, they can do so for £40 return on P&O—and we can get a direct train down to London in only two and a half hours on Hull Trains’ bespoke open railway service. We have everything we need to offer remote workers. We have a much higher standard of living than they would have if they were living in a tiny little flat and commuting. No offence to my colleagues from London, but the prices in London are extraordinary. Living in a small flat in London and getting stuck on the underground, or living in the city of Hull, in a beautiful, much bigger house, with the Yorkshire countryside and the beautiful east coast on the doorstep—which would we rather?

Why are the Government insisting on sending everyone back to the office as they were before? No—send everyone instead to cities such as Hull, where they would be welcomed with open arms. They can give our high streets a boost by coming and living in our city centre, they can spend their money in our city, and they can truly achieve a bit more equality than the Government are offering. So I hope we are not going to return to business as normal. The first step in not returning to business as normal is to look at reforming the business rate system. It is outdated, it does not work and it is unfair to businesses in my constituency.

I hope that while we look at changing things for the better, we also change our attitude towards remote working, because it really can offer the skills revolution and the opportunities we need for cities like mine. For too long in cities such as Hull, if people wanted a good job, they had to leave. Remote working changes all that. People can have the job of their dreams in the city where they grew up, sitting behind a laptop.

[David Johnston]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady that we need jobs in other parts of the country, but does she agree with me that the big risk of remote working is that younger workers will not develop the skills, knowledge and connections that they do when they are in the workplace? They, at least, need to be able to go into the office to develop them.

[Emma Hardy]

I am so pleased the hon. Gentleman raises that point, because it brings me on to my second point. He is absolutely right and we are solving that problem here in the fine city of Hull by working with businesses to set up remote working hubs. We are looking at hotdesking situations and bringing together people who wish to have remote jobs, but who do not wish to be isolated forever in their bedrooms away from everybody else and not have those opportunities to network. We are looking at changing part of Princes Quay shopping centre into an area where we can have remote working desks based around particular industries, so that people can network, get to know each other and mix while still working remotely for different companies around the country or even around the world. This is happening right now. We have turned the old HSBC bank on Whitefriargate, owned by businessman Gerard Toplass, into the most stunning place to work. We will be setting up hotdesking opportunities right there in that old bank, utilising the assets we have in our high streets into new resources—resources for hotdesking and remote working, and bringing more residential living into the city, too.

To do all that, however—I could enthuse about this idea for hours, but I will stop now, Madam Deputy Speaker—we need to start with a fundamental reform of business rates. To give Hull a chance to help itself, we need fair taxation for everybody.

17:52

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I think we can all agree on the immense importance of our small businesses and high streets that we represent in our constituencies, but I must also add shopping parades. We do not hear a lot about shopping parades. They are not necessarily as glamorous as town centres, but I must say that the small businesses that operate in the shopping parades in Ipswich have played an absolutely vital role, particularly when restrictions were in place and people could not go far from their home. They worked incredibly hard to support many of my constituents during that key phase and I would like to mention them here today.

The word “churlish” has been used a fair bit in this debate so far, by the Minister and other colleagues, and I think it is correct to use that word. Overall, £407 billion has been spent by the Government, much of which has been to support businesses through the furlough scheme, which we think has protected about 12 million jobs. In my constituency alone, £7.6 million has been given in restart grants to support local businesses in my town, so I think it is a slight difference to say, “Well, maybe it could have been slightly better in this way or that way,” and try to pretend that we have not done anything significant. I believe this Government have moved heaven and earth to support businesses in my constituency.

One hon. Member said earlier in the debate that the Conservatives are no longer the party of business and that every businessperson he talks to is disparaging about the Government’s support. That is simply not the case. Time and time again I talk to constituents and businesses in my constituency, some of whom have never actually supported the Conservatives before but are now open to doing so precisely because of the support that has been provided. That is not to say that there are not businesses and people out there who are not so happy with the support. That is true. These are conversations that I have had—[Interruption.] These are real conversations, so I do not know why you are laughing at me. [Interruption.] Sorry—I know I must refer to Members through the Chair. I got slightly animated there; I am very, very sorry. I have been getting better at that but sometimes standards slip.

I would like to talk about the town deal, which has been incredibly welcome for many hon. Friends and hon. Members. Ipswich, of course, has benefited from getting £25 million through a town deal. There are 11 different projects as part of that town deal that are making, and will make, I believe, an enormous difference to our town centre and to many businesses. As part of that—I mentioned shopping parades—there is a £2.5 million local shopping parade regeneration fund to support our shopping parades. We have buildings that have collected dust and have sat there empty that are being brought back into use. I cannot believe that about £100,000 had to be spent removing pigeon poo from one of those buildings, but that is the case. One of those projects will bring the Paul’s silo building in Ipswich back into use. The old post office building will be brought back into use because of the money supported through the town deal.

If the Labour party was this new pro-business party, despite the fact that it was not long ago that many of you were going into a general election supporting a Communist to be Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Of course, it was not long—[Interruption.] Was he not? [Interruption.] Was he not? But, of course, I forget—“under new management”. I do not believe that the Labour party can credibly claim to be the party of business, but why is it that you pour scorn on the town deal, which is providing over £3 billion—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Can the hon. Gentleman please stop making it so personal? He keeps saying “you” and he knows he must not do that.

[Tom Hunt]

Over £3 billion has been provided through the town deal programme—something that I believe all hon. Members should welcome. This is vital support, but time and time again, scorn has been poured on it and I think that is regrettable, because I would have thought that the town deal is something that we can all get behind and look at all the different ways that it supports local business.

I would like to talk about crime and antisocial behaviour, which is something that I think must be tackled if we are to support businesses on our high streets as they recover from the covid pandemic. I mention this with respect to both the night-time economy and the fact that, time and time again, I come across and am contacted by businesses in Ipswich who are victims of persistent crime, including shoplifting and everything else. This is a blight on their existence, so we need to have, in my view, a zero-tolerance approach to this kind of, as some people might call it, “low-level antisocial behaviour and crime”, but there is nothing “low-level” about something that happens week after week and seriously affects your ability to operate as a business. We need to have that zero-tolerance approach.

We are getting 20,000 extra police officers, but I would like to see a review of the national police funding formula. In Suffolk, we are getting between 50 and 60 new police officers, but, if we were funded fairly, it would probably be closer to 100. We need to look at that and at the night-time economy, because we do have a problem in Ipswich with crime. We also have a problem with drugs—drug-dealing and drug-taking—in the town centre, particularly on a Friday and Saturday night. The concern that I have is that you do not have that positive police presence and positivity, so negative influence can come into the town centre. Tackling crime and antisocial behaviour in our town centres must be part of supporting businesses as they recover from the covid pandemic.

I support the opportunity to debate this, and I agree with many hon. Friends that business rates should be looked at. We should strive for a level playing field, and we are so far away from having that level playing field. We see businesses that are rooted in our constituencies, and could not be more local and more important to the functioning of our local communities, unable to co-operate.

I think we should strive for a situation in which our town centres continue to be key retail centres. There may be some that are more residential, but we should not give up on a significant component of town centres and city centres being retail. For that to happen, we need a serious look at business rates. I was pleased to see that beer duty may also be looked at, which would be vital to the hospitality sector in Ipswich.

I do think that there needs to be less churlishness, because the Government have provided unprecedented support for businesses throughout the pandemic. Over £400 billion has been spent—£7.6 million in Ipswich alone has been spent on restart grants and furlough—so we need to have that debate. There needs to be an appreciation that at some point there will have to be a reckoning when it comes to public finances.

It is one thing to say, whenever there is a spending commitment or a debate about spending money, that we will always agree to it, but we cannot at the same time vote against the move to withdraw restrictions, which at least gave businesses in my constituency an opportunity over the summer to breathe and recover from the trauma that they have experienced throughout the pandemic. There are challenges ahead when it comes to covid, but I think it was right to allow businesses to recover in the summer period.

18:00

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I am extremely glad that the shadow Chancellor moved the motion before the House, because the support of our small businesses has to be one of the principal priorities of the Government at this time. I know that enormous challenges are crowding in from every side as we continue to tackle the covid crisis while dealing with fuel price rises, supply chain shortages, NHS backlogs and the work to decarbonise our economy, but a thriving economy built on private enterprise will do more to help us to solve all those problems than anything else, so it is imperative that the Chancellor does all he can to support and promote small businesses over the next few months.

Given its well-publicised proximity to Heathrow airport, my constituency plays host to many companies in the travel sector. I am particularly concerned about the future of the sector. Despite announcements in recent weeks, there are still considerable restrictions on people’s ability to travel that continue to limit the opportunities for trading in the sector, not least with continued uncertainty about the sector’s prospects as covid cases continue to soar.

The travel sector underpins so many other aspects of the UK economy, both in attracting visitors to our cultural and hospitality sectors and in enabling us to seek out new markets elsewhere, so it must be a strategic priority for the Government to provide it with support. Travel industries will not thrive after the end of the pandemic if they do not receive assistance now.

I call on the Government to extend furlough to all the sectors that are still trying to operate under restrictions, but particularly to the travel sector. They also need to redesign the furlough scheme to enable companies to use it to part-pay their employees. When I spoke to travel companies at a surgery in my constituency recently, they highlighted that at the moment they have enough trade to pay their previously full-time employees to come in for two or three days a week to man the phones, take bookings and research options. They would love to have furlough to be able to pay them for the remainder of their time, just to keep going while there are still so many restrictions and so much uncertainty. Furlough was conceived as an all-or-nothing system, but it really needs to change in order to continue to support businesses that are still affected as we come out of the pandemic.

The retail and hospitality sectors were badly hit by the pandemic. Many are now struggling to reopen fully, thanks to supply chain and labour market issues. The Government need to look again at their immigration policies and think about how they can be better designed to support our key high street industries as we emerge from the pandemic. More than that, they need to complete their promised review of business rates and think again about how they are levied on town centre businesses.

There has been a lot of discussion this afternoon about what might take the place of business rates—I think that there was some freelancing from some hon. Gentlemen on the Tory Back Benches about what might replace them. They are no longer in their place, which is a shame; I was very interested to hear about their suggestions to increase VAT, although I think I am right in saying that the Conservatives committed in their 2019 manifesto to not doing so.

[Peter Grant]

I fear that I may have anticipated the hon. Lady’s next line, but how much faith can we place in a Conservative manifesto promise not to increase tax these days?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Gentleman has indeed anticipated exactly what I was about to say, which is that, given that in their 2019 manifesto the Conservatives committed themselves to not raising VAT, we can surely expect it to be raised at some point before the end of this Parliament. Nevertheless, if the Government are not sure how to proceed on business rates, I can give the hon. Gentleman a fully fleshed-out policy from the Liberal Democrats. We believe that a commercial landowner levy would be a much fairer way of raising local revenue, by taxing landowners rather than business owners. We urge the Government to consider that option.

Small businesses provide about three fifths of the employment in the private sector, and it is vital that those jobs are supported. The Government’s recent announcement of a rise in national insurance payments will deter small businesses from creating the new jobs that are so badly needed and limit the expansion of companies seeking to offer new products and services, including those that offer the innovation we need for the green economy. The Government should limit the impact of this rise on the small business sector by quadrupling the employment allowance from £4,000 to £16,000. That would enable a small business to employ five full-time workers on the median UK salary without paying any national insurance contributions, and would incentivise and support new businesses as we make the transition towards a net zero carbon economy.

The UK faces a troubling few months. Covid is not over yet, and a return to normal patterns of life seems likely to be substantially delayed. However, problems create opportunities, and we need to help our entrepreneurs to find solutions and bring them to the people who need them. Small businesses support communities, provide employment and deliver a good society, and the Government need to support them for everyone’s benefit.

18:06

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate.

I am blessed in having a great many small businesses in Wantage and Didcot, from those that create medical devices and vaccines to those that clear debris from space. I have more pubs in my constituency than all but seven other Members. I have high-quality farms—and we must not forget that our farms are businesses too. In fact, I have a huge range of businesses, including the Great British Mead Company. I do not know how many superhero film fans there are in the House, but while there may not be many similarities between me and Chris Hemsworth’s Thor character, being able to drink mead—thanks to the Great British Mead Company —is my one claim to similarity.

I have just issued to my constituents a leaflet reporting on what I have been doing. I have visited more than 300 organisations since I was elected, many of them businesses and many of them on the high street. I have to say to Opposition Members that, time and again, when I visit business people on the high street, they say, “I think the Government have done a really good job in supporting us.” Sometimes they preface that by saying, “I am not a Conservative voter.” The gratitude is real, and I suspect that Opposition Members have heard it when they have gone around their own constituencies—although I do not expect them to acknowledge that here—because the support has been phenomenal. As has already been mentioned, it has amounted to more than £400 billion. People generally think of furlough and the grant scheme, but there is also the money that has gone into the towns fund, the increase in employment support, and the money invested in the start-up loan scheme.

It is true that businesses have had differing experiences of the pandemic, with some doing better than others. It has already been pointed out that businesses in the travel sector have had a particularly difficult time. There are pubs whose regulars have still not come back. However, there are signs of optimism and steps in the right direction for all these sectors.

It is an interesting feature of this debate that the one thing on which we all seem to agree is that the present business rates system is not what it should be and needs to be reformed. That is precisely why the Government are conducting a review of it. The interim report has already given us an indication of what people have been saying about business rates, which is sometimes that they are too high, sometimes that there is too much admin, and sometimes that the reliefs do not seem to be targeted exactly as they should be. There is also the issue of online competition. I am as keen as anybody to see the playing field levelled with companies such as Amazon, but it is not just Amazon that does online sales. There are often very small businesses that do not have the cost of buildings and that might be competing on a slightly unlevel playing field with businesses on our high streets, so we need a system that is not just about whacking Amazon.

As Labour’s motion says, we have six months left of the current review. We are not making a decision this month, and the Government will bring out their proposals. Thanks to the action they have taken in this period, unemployment is lower than expected and GDP is higher. I have every confidence that in the coming months the Government will take whatever action is needed, including on business rates, because they have shown in the past 18 months that people’s jobs and people’s businesses, as well as people’s health, are right at the centre of their decision making.

18:10

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate today on behalf of my small business owners in Pontypridd and Taff Ely. Seeing people returning to our high streets and seeing local shops, restaurants and pubs reopening over the summer to crowds of grateful customers was a blessed relief for business owners and consumers, and I know that it is not just high streets across Pontypridd and Taff Ely that have benefited from an economic boost over the summer. Despite the cautious return to normality taken by the Welsh Labour Government, it has been an extremely difficult few years for businesses across all our constituencies. Much of the hospitality sector had to close due to covid-19 restrictions and other businesses struggled to cope with staff illness, social distancing requirements and, particularly in recent months, the challenges posed by supply chain delays due to Brexit.

I recognise that the Treasury’s support packages such as furlough and the self-employed income support scheme offered significant support to businesses across the UK, but far too many businesses and individuals still did not get the support they needed from the UK Government. They were completely excluded. I would like to draw the House’s attention to the report out today by UK Music, which shows that 69,000 jobs in the music industry were lost as a result of the pandemic, which is almost a third of the workforce. Shame on this Government for failing to step up and support our creative industries.

In my own constituency, people have lost their jobs and livelihoods due to redundancies at GE Aviation and British Airways, and fantastic local businesses in the travel industry such as Ferris Coach Holidays and Edwards Coaches have struggled without any access to tailored support for their sectors. Thankfully, we are seeing brave new businesses in Pontypridd and across Taff Ely opening their doors, including the No. 12 bar, Storyville Books and the Gatto Lounge on our local high streets, but new businesses and those that are more established are still facing massive challenges, especially as they still struggle to recover from the impact of the pandemic. With more and more businesses being undercut by online giants such as Amazon, it is no wonder that small independent businesses are feeling the strain. Small businesses such as those really enrich our local communities, and without them, I fear that more and more high streets will look identical, regardless of where in the UK they are.

Many businesses are also facing the double challenge of increases in the cost of living, from rising energy bills and petrol costs, and increased shortages and supply chain issues. Reducing business rates would be an excellent way to support businesses large and small through what many are anticipating will be a difficult few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) mentioned, our Labour Government in Wales have led the way on support for businesses throughout the coronavirus pandemic. The relief package announced by the Welsh Labour Government in March 2021 extended the rates holiday for businesses with rateable values of up to £500,000 in the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors in Wales for the financial year 2021-22. In conjunction with the small business rate relief scheme, this has meant that more than 70,000 businesses across Wales have continued to pay no rates at all in 2021-22. But with the end to rates relief across the UK coming up in March, and without funding from the UK Government through the Barnett consequential formula, the Welsh Government simply will not be able to support local businesses in the way they want to next year.

I urge the Minister to think now about the steps he can take to support high streets across the UK, and not just in England. This Government talk a good game about the Union, but when it comes down to it, time and again the devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are nothing but a distant second thought. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could update the House on his most recent discussions about support for our high streets with his counterparts in the Welsh Government. Ultimately, it is vital that businesses in Wales are supported through the challenges of the winter and throughout what is likely to be an extended period as we recover from the pandemic. They must not be left behind.

18:14

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I am pleased that the Opposition have chosen to debate this vital topic, as it is obvious that there are real problems facing our high streets and real challenges facing our businesses across the country. These familiar problems have been greatly exacerbated by the lockdowns over the past year and a half and by competition from online sales, which was the dominant challenge before covid, and by the changes in the way we live, work, shop and socialise.

These changes are also a potential salvation for some of our places and towns. The shadow Chancellor talked about the need for fresh ideas, and she is absolutely right. There have been real innovations in the way our towns look and in the way our businesses work. New technology is making viable again places that were left behind by economic changes over hundreds of years.

The market town of Devizes is the jewel of Wiltshire and the gateway to the south-west, and one of medieval England’s premier places, but it has not been the same since about 1830 because of industrialisation and the flow of labour to the towns and economic centres. Devizes is becoming an economic hub and a viable financial centre once again, largely because of the internet. Largely thanks to digital, we also see an opportunity to prosper for places left behind by deindustrialisation over the past few generations.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) is no longer here, because she made a tremendous speech. She sounded like one of us, talking about the glory of her place and the opportunity that has been created for young people in Hull in recent years, not just because of the wonderful place it is but because of the opportunities of connectivity from new investment in broadband and transport. That is what we need to think about when we think about places. I believe, as I think she does—and as I hope we all believe on the Conservative Benches—that people should not have to leave the place they love to have the life they want, but that does not mean there should not be opportunities to come and go and for information, ideas, goods and services to travel.

Connectivity is vital for our places, so I applaud what the Government are doing to increase access to broadband and particularly to increase access to rural transport. I hope Devizes will benefit from one of the new stations under the restoring your railway fund.

We also need more support to adapt, and I welcome everything the Government are doing, particularly through the Help to Grow scheme, the start-up loans scheme and the super deduction on capital investment, which are tremendous initiatives. The more than £3.5 billion of structural help being provided through the towns fund will spruce up 100 places with tens of millions of pounds of funding.

The community ownership fund to which we committed in the manifesto is now being introduced, and it will support what the hon. Lady talked about: pride of place and allowing communities to take ownership and support local businesses.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

It is great to hear my hon. Friend champion the idea of community, and he hits the nail on the head. For our high streets it is about creating a community of the future to which people come not only to shop and to do business but to socialise. That is how to make sure our high streets, like mine in Hinckley, are fit for the future.

[Danny Kruger]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course we want a more diverse and plural high street; it does not need to be all retail. Residential should be part of the high street of the future, too, bringing footfall. He is right to highlight these institutions of belonging, civil society and places of gathering that enable people to come together and work together.

I applaud everything that is being done on spending, but I will say a word on tax. Of course business rates need reform, and there have been many helpful observations and contributions on that this evening. It is right that the Government have effected a reduction in business rates in recent years by raising the employment allowance, which is a significant tax cut for small businesses that I applaud, and it is right that we are reviewing the whole business rates system. I recognise the force of the argument for a digital sales tax and a global corporation tax, which are the right things to explore in the context of the new world of online retail, but I sound a note of caution and echo the point made by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that there is a point at which reducing business rates can actually be harmful. For finite resources such as land or space on the high street, reduced business rates can simply lead to rent increases, as we have seen. So we need to think about a reform that will not simply lead to benefits to landlords, with these not feeding into benefits for those businesses and with increasing inequality, without benefiting the Exchequer. That is not to mention the obvious need to compensate for this reduction in or abolition of business rates, as proposed by the Labour party, which has not yet explained how it would plug that enormous fiscal hole.

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is the potential for a three-level look at this, as we have the high street, out-of-town shopping and online businesses? There are three different categories. My constituency has out-of-town shopping centres that are doing very well, thank you, but the high streets are in a very difficult place. To go back to his earlier point, may I remind him that the hope that railway stations—whether Devizes or Ferryhill—can give to local communities in developing—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived and making a long intervention, having only just got here, is just taking up the time of others.

[Danny Kruger]

I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention and he is absolutely right in what he says. Of course, the challenge is to get a flexible system that recognises the diversity of our business system, which is why an overall review of business rates is better than some blanket abolition.

18:21

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger). I am grateful for the opportunity to speak this afternoon and I want to start by paying tribute to our small businesses across this country, first and foremost those in my constituency, which encompasses the town of Reading, its suburbs of Caversham and Emmer Green, and the separate town of Woodley, all of which have a thriving small business community covering many sectors. People from across the country are probably familiar with the strength of the tech industry in our part of the south-east of England, but, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston), whose constituency includes Didcot, we share with colleagues in south Oxfordshire a number of other vibrant sectors. We have a strong local university, a strong record on entrepreneurship, the growth of many SMEs and a growing population, with many people relocating to the Reading area, which we welcome. We are a diverse and tolerant community that welcomes people coming in. That is a great strength and small businesses are a great strength of this country, and I want to pay tribute to the shadow Chancellor for her speech today on the importance of supporting small businesses in Labour policy and in that of any political party, just as it should be. I hope the Government listen today to the excellent points that have been made all round about the need to end the current business rates regime and to move on to something much more sensible and appropriate. Thoughtful comments have been made by Members from across the House on that point.

However, at this time, it is fair to say that, despite the thriving nature of many small businesses across this country and in my area, SMEs face some serious challenges. The pressures and difficulties of the current business rates regime are one part of that, but there are many others. It is fair to say, without being overly partisan, that the Government could learn a lot as they look back at the pandemic and at a series of other policy choices they have made in recent times. In my experience, SMEs have suffered enormously in the pandemic. Like many Members from across the House, I have worked hard to try to support them. That support needs to be continued at this time, as we come out of the great difficulties we have had recently.

There are many other problems, some of them self-inflicted, such as the current supply chain crisis, which is obviously linked to the Government’s Brexit deal, and the national insurance rise, which is a tax on jobs, which nobody in their right mind would recommend as an obvious choice. Other challenges include the sudden economic shock of the move away from physical retail, and I want to discuss that later in my brief remarks. There are many other pressures on SMEs, and we need to look at those and think about how we can address them.

There are great strengths to build on. I am not quite going to be able to rival my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) in addressing the scale of the benefits of my town, but I will do my best in the few brief moments available. Reading is a booming medium-sized town, with a wonderful town centre and great history. It is an historic market town that goes back to Saxon times, as many people know. It has some wonderful buildings, more conservation areas than many towns of its size and many Georgian buildings. It was where Jane Austen went to school. It has the ruins of a wonderful abbey, which was once one of the biggest in the country. All of those are reasons to locate a small business in Reading, which has a pleasant working environment, history, culture, a fast train and excellent connections to London; the hon. Member for Devizes mentioned the importance of infrastructure to small businesses. We have a lot to build on; however, in my experience many small businesses in my constituency and, I believe, throughout the country are held back by issues such as the current business rates regime.

Let me mention a few other issues that hold back small businesses. There is a real need to look again at the national insurance increase. It is not the right time to do it. There must be other ways for those with the broadest shoulders to pay their fair share for necessary extra health and social care spending.

Education catch-up for young people who have been left behind because of the pandemic is a huge issue. There is a real economic link between that and the success of small businesses, as many young people are employed in SMEs in my area and, I am sure, throughout the country. I hope that the Government will do a lot more on the catch-up funding, which should be far more than something like £1 a day. The US and the Netherlands are spending more than £1,000 per pupil, with much more generous catch-up programmes, and Labour has pledged £14.7 billion for a much bigger scheme.

SMEs play a vital role in our economy and are contributing hugely in my area. There is great scope to build on and develop our historic town centres and to attract more replacement employment as retail contracts a bit. However, in my experience SMEs are held back by business rates. We need to scrap the current system and look at this issue again, and I urge the Government to do that.

18:26

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the opportunity to champion everything that small businesses are doing to build a better Birkenhead in the wake of covid-19—from the many cafés and restaurants that gave so generously during the height of the pandemic so that no one went hungry to the All About You beauty parlour, which I opened last summer and which provides dedicated support to people undergoing chemotherapy treatment and pamper days for dementia patients.

Just last week, I had the great privilege of visiting some of the small businesses that are putting Birkenhead back on the cultural map, including Future Yard, a brand-new music venue that gives anything in Liverpool a run for its money—apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson)—and Make Hamilton Square, a profit-for-purpose that provides accommodation to social enterprises and promising new artists.

For far too long, my constituents had become accustomed to the depressing sight of rundown high streets and shuttered shop fronts. Although much more work still needs to be done, things are at last beginning change. The small businesses I have mentioned are leading the charge, bringing jobs and investment back to our town and restoring a sense of pride in the place we call home. They are all totally committed to giving back to their community.

For left-behind towns like Birkenhead to truly thrive, the Government must first recognise the profound responsibility that they have in supporting our town centres as we slowly emerge from covid-19. Too many businesses in Birkenhead and across our country face an uncertain future as they grapple with soaring prices, stock shortages, the end to rates relief and the impending hike in national insurance contributions. In my constituency alone, nearly 150 small businesses are in danger of going under—a terrifying statistic for a town already suffering from some of the UK’s highest levels of poverty and joblessness.

Things do not have to be this way. As the shadow Chancellor has said, reforming an outdated and regressive business rates system is essential if the Government are serious about honouring their promise to level up and build back better. The current system is just not fit for purpose, placing an unbearable burden on small and independent businesses while tech giants and multinationals hide away billions in offshore bank accounts. By freezing business rates and increasing the threshold for small business rates relief, we can lay solid foundations for our economic recovery and get the economy firing on all cylinders once again. That is why I will support my party’s motion later.

18:28

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

I warmly commend the Labour party for bringing to the House for discussion the situation for high streets and small businesses, because it really is an issue that cuts across all our communities and all the places we represent. I am conscious that the situation in Scotland is different, as are many of the powers, which are reserved and devolved, so I shall focus more on the common issues that need resolution. I am also particularly supportive in general terms of the Labour motion. I think that we can all agree that business rates as they stand are not fit for purpose anywhere and that they need urgent reform. Worldwide, retail has experienced a disruptive event and an extreme transformation. Some of the points that were made earlier trying to draw distinctions and conclusions from local events miss the mark. This is a global phenomenon that we are seeing. The high street is undergoing a considerable evolution. I was struck by the shadow Chancellor saying that covid had changed everything. I slightly disagree; covid has accelerated trends that were already there. Although I do not think that it has changed quite everything, it has certainly accelerated the changes that we need to make as legislators to deal with the challenges that we are facing.

I commend the OECD for the research that it has done into the comparative analysis of different places and of how retail and consumer habits are changing worldwide. It is a very useful analysis. I was struck by the reference made by the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) to the 1830s and how this is long-term change. In the same way that we saw industrialisation change retail habits, automation is changing several industries right now. What we have seen during covid is a massive step shift in the automation of retail. The fact is that a number of high street chains do not have a business model that will stand the test of time, because consumers are moving faster than their economic models. Covid has sped that up. Likewise, during covid, many of us have realised that soulless out-of-town retail developments are not a necessity in our lives when there is online retail. That trend will not stop; it will accelerate and continue.

Traditional retailers in the high street and in city centre developments are facing massive change in consumer spending and consumer trends. Let me share, or perhaps over-share this: if my dad has learned how to buy his pants online during covid—I am sure the House is delighted that I have shared that fact—retailers will need massively to change the space, the footprint and how they operate. That will have massive knock-on effects for central Government and for local government revenues and finances, and all sorts of other issues besides.

I think that we would all agree that it is the small, unique, interesting local businesses that are rooted in the community and that pay their taxes locally that will be the most resilient, as they give us a sense of place and a sense of community. It is surely incumbent on us to examine what we are doing that is holding them back and what we are doing that is militating against them.

We are seeing changes locally in Stirling, as we are in all of our communities. We have vibrant high streets in Callander, Bridge of Allan, Dunblane and Stirling City. We have a great retail offering and a great night-time economy as well, but we also have too many empty shop units. That is a problem that we must address, because we are not where we need to be. It needs to be addressed urgently if we are to avoid a deteriorating situation and to create an improving one. Many of the answers are local. I would like to see much more muscular use of compulsory repair orders by local government and more intervention against poor landlords where poor landlords exist. Business rates, as I have said, need urgent reform. There are no easy answers and I would caution that, as much as we are supporting the Labour motion, I am not sure that it has all of the answers.

We also need to stop doing things that are holding the high street back. That cuts across planning policy and local government. It also cuts across planning policy nationally in Scotland and in England. Issues that we can address in this House include proper consideration of VAT and business taxation generally and the lack of a workable digital tax, on which, much as I would acknowledge the work that has been done, we still have not seen sufficient results in the real world. We have tax avoidance on an industrial scale on occasion and that militates against the interests of our public Exchequer, against the interests of small and local businesses and against the interests of our high street.

We also need to be honest about the problems facing small business, including labour shortages and supply-chain problems occasioned by Brexit. Some Members earlier pretended that those problems do not exist or minimised their impact, and that really does not help an intellectually honest discussion.

We also need to be far more strategic and not do silly things that have hurt our businesses rather than help them. We need to be more strategic about how the high street operates. We have stepped forward on that in Stirling with the Stirling City working group, of which I am very supportive, listening to local people and local businesses and giving more resources to co-ordination and a longer-term strategic framework. We have seen, on occasion, too many well-intentioned but stop-start, short-term efforts of support which have often focused just on prettification or easy answers—on more bins or clean-ups of the high street, rather than on the long-term, strategic, macro issues that we need to address.

We have great businesses in Stirling and great businesses in Scotland. There are great businesses across the high streets that we all represent. In fact, we have a common endeavour to try to boost them and to stop doing things that are harming them. That is in all our interests.

18:34

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I thank the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), for ensuring that we are having this debate on our Opposition day, as it is important to my constituents and certainly to the businesses in my constituency.

Supporting local businesses means supporting the workers, families and people in our communities. Local businesses are not just the backbone of our economy; they are also often the depictions and representations of many towns and cities across the country. In Bradford, we are incredibly fortunate to have a rich profusion of local businesses, especially in the hospitality industry, which not only caters for the locals in Bradford, but brings in so many others from afar. However, during the pandemic businesses have struggled, and those in Bradford West struggled extensively due to a longer period of local lockdowns. Their compassion, even in the toughest of times, did not wither away, and I witnessed that at first hand. While businesses were closing their doors, they were also opening their hearts by supporting those who were most in need, especially our NHS. I want to put on record my gratitude to them during those times.

But gratitude is not enough. Those businesses need the Government to support them during times of uncertainty. Although we are grateful for the support that has been forthcoming, it does not cut far enough for the businesses that are struggling now. The pandemic and the gradual effects of Brexit are signs of the pressures that local businesses are facing every day. We have heard about the queues of lorries that we expected at Dover following Brexit, but what this Government’s poor planning did not assess was the lorries without drivers that would have an impact on food and fuel shortages. This afternoon, I spoke to Regal Foods, a medium-sized business in my constituency, which really was affected by the situation.

Although a long-term strategy is needed to support local businesses to help to rebuild our economy, we can help sooner by freezing business rates. Labour plans to freeze business rates until the next revaluation. That will benefit sectors such as retail and hospitality that are hit the most by this tax. Hospitality businesses that are struggling to find workers and have only recently had to endure the increase in VAT to 12.5%, while barely being able to remain afloat, need such support. Labour also plans to cut business rates and increase the threshold for small business rates relief from the current threshold of £15,000 to £25,000.

[Chris Evans]

During the last financial crash, the Labour Government actually cut VAT to reinvigorate the high street, by ensuring that people went there and that money started to flow through the shops again. We hear from this Government yet again about raising value-added tax, as the Conservatives have always done whenever they have been in power. Does my hon. Friend believe that a VAT cut, rather than an increase, would help the high streets?

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely agree. The Government have gone back on their manifesto pledge not to raise taxes. Giving small businesses a discount on their business rates for 2022-23 would be a much-needed lifeline.

As I said at the start of my speech, supporting local businesses is about not just business, but the entire community. There are lots of wedding halls in my constituency. During the pandemic, I recall inviting the Prime Minister up to visit some of them. A wedding hall in my constituency is not just about the wedding hall itself and the people running it. It creates other jobs: the waiters, the florist, the photographer, the caterer—the list goes on. The pandemic really has had an impact on the local economies of these places. The Madisson, the Rio Grande and the Mirage in my constituency—those are the big ones, but there are lots of small ones too—have really borne the brunt of what happened during the pandemic. Those wedding halls are huge. Anybody who has been to an Asian wedding will know that we do weddings really well, with a large amount of people in attendance. Despite being able to put social distancing measures in place, the venues were not allowed to open and they really suffered.

In the same way, cutting business rates for SMEs will not only support the local economy, but counteract deprivation, poverty and regional inequality. I have the fastest growing rate of child poverty in the whole of Yorkshire and Humber. These measures go a long way in helping people to keep the bread on the table and keep their household going. We already know how much the universal tax credit cut will impact on my constituency.

A report from WPI Strategy in 2020 found that constituencies like mine are ranked third highest in the need for levelling up, as a direct result of a regional inequality impacting on business rates. The report found that it was even justified to refer to this regional inequality as a “northern shop tax”, as hard-working businesses in these areas, from SMEs to multinationals, were more likely to struggle with setting up shop because of business rates. More worryingly, analysis by Labour using the latest Office for National Statistics business impact survey reveals that 332,000 businesses are at risk of closure in the next three months, accounting for 828,000 jobs. In my constituency of Bradford West, 232 businesses are at risk, which will have a devastating impact on so many families who are already struggling.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

I recognise the issues that you have raised in terms of the sectors that are likely to be impacted by the changes and because of the pandemic, but do you also agree that the brewing and pubs—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Would the hon. Lady please address the hon. Lady as “she”?

[Kim Johnson]

I apologise. Does my hon. Friend agree that the brewing and pubs sector has been hard hit by the pandemic and is set to be hit again by the proposed rises in VAT, beer duty and business rates? In Liverpool, the greatest city in the world, the sector contributes over 6,000 jobs and £160 million to the local economy. Does she agree that supporting this sector is vital in securing jobs and boosting our local economies?

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. While I absolutely agree with all the points she made, I am afraid I will have to debate with her whether Liverpool or Bradford is the greatest city in this country.

The world is changing, and not just with Brexit and covid; we had 11 years of austerity that went beforehand. We were not ready for the pandemic and now we are seeing the brunt of that. Our high streets and local businesses need support based on these modern challenges. Many of us have mentioned the emergence of the gig economy and everything going online. All these things need a new system. An age-old tax system that excludes digital businesses and burdens those SMEs on the high street is threatening the prosperity of our economy.

Labour is the pro-worker, pro-business party. The Conservatives, having already broken key election promises by raising income tax on workers, are now failing to act to cut business rates to support local business. North Parade in my constituency was shortlisted for the British high street awards. Recently, IK Collection, an award-winning tailors in Westgate in my constituency, kitted out the late Sir Tom Moore in suits. These are the kinds of businesses that make up the fabric of Bradford West. There are many other such businesses. It was featured in a programme, because when it came to the pandemic these businesses stopped tailoring suits and started tailoring scrubs. These are the kinds of businesses that now need our support. When we needed them, they stepped up. I urge the Government: now it is our turn to return some of the love and support that they need not just to survive but to thrive. Only when they thrive will places such as Bradford West also thrive.

18:43

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

Having listened to the speeches from the Labour Benches, I have put Bradford, Liverpool and Hull at the top of the places that I would like to visit. I would caution Conservative Members about some of the things they have said about the constituencies that they represent. When they talk down their constituencies they are not giving a very good advertisement to visit these places. They may be beautiful and there may be fantastic people living there, but it is no good if the Member of Parliament is standing there talking about the night-time economy, antisocial behaviour and what a bad visit it would be to go to the high street.



To me, the high street is the lifeblood of the British community. I have childhood memories of my mother dragging me around the shops to get shoes from the local shoe shop when we had to go back to school. I remember, when I was older and got into music, buying my first vinyl from the local record shop. As I got older and wanted to go out, I went out and got the latest fashions from the menswear shop. I remember that high street thriving, full of people and bustling. When I went back there a couple of years ago—I took my wife there once—I could not believe the transformation of that small high street that I remember so well. The banks had closed down and the cashpoints were concreted up, as people did not use them anymore. It was full of derelict shops.

I was interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd and Taff-Ely (Alex Davies-Jones). I remember venturing sometimes down to her constituency to go shopping. I remember the Woolworths being there, and I remember the Marks and Spencer at the top end of Taff Street as well. They have gone. I worry about those high streets, because I believe that the health of a constituency and a community can be judged by the high street.

In the constituency I represent, there are three major high streets: Risca, Newbridge and Blackwood. If anyone wants to visit Blackwood, it has a number of unique boutique shops. It has the Maxime cinema. If anyone wants to see the new James Bond film, “No Time to Die”, they will not find a cheaper ticket in town than at the Maxime cinema in the middle of Blackwood. We are not without our problems, however, and they come down simply to business rates. We have all heard from Members on both sides of the House that there must be some sort of reform. I have been in the House for 11 years. From the moment I came into this House, there have been campaigns on both sides of the House to save our high street. The former Chancellor George Osborne talked about tax simplification, yet here we are 11 years later, and still we face the problem of business rates, and they are still not being reformed.

I was interested in those contributions from the Government Benches that said that the Labour party in opposition must come up with an innovative solution to sort the business rates problem. I say to those Members: they are in government, so they have to come up with the solutions. I see some Government Members nodding to say that they have come up with solutions, and I will come to the points they raised. The simple fact is that we all know business rates need to be reformed.

I want to talk about a company in my constituency: Tidal’s Store, a fantastic family-run business that sells high-class, high-quality furniture. If any Member of the House wants to deck out their flats in London, or their houses—or, dare I say, for some Conservative Members, their mansions—they could not do better than going online and buying from Tidal’s Store. It is a fantastic shop in the middle of Blackwood. However, I went there three years ago, and the problem it had was business rates. At the top end of the town, it pays £330 a square foot for business rates. Go further down the town and businesses pay £300. At the bottom of the town, businesses pay £275 a square foot. They are all on the same high street. It does not make sense to me. To top it all off, there is a business park just below the high street where businesses pay just £50 a square foot. Those businesses taking advantage of those business rates are not the small, family-run, innovative companies, such as Tidal’s Store; they are the huge companies that can afford the business rates in town. It seems extremely unfair.

I touched on this issue with the Minister earlier. I went to the council. In fairness, I will give credit where credit is due to Caerphilly County Borough Council, its chief executive Christina Harry and their leader Philippa Marsden. They know this is a real problem for their high street and have been very supportive, but there is nothing they can do. All they do is collect the tax, yet if there is a complaint, it is Caerphilly Council that is taking the blame. I then went to the valuation office. It said to me, “Oh, we just set the rates, Mr Evans. We do not do anything about appeals. We cannot change the rate. The rate is set in stone.” Then I thought, “I will write to the Minister.” The Minister at the time, as a matter of coincidence, was the now Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wrote to me saying that there was nothing he could do. Is anything more frustrating than seeing a family-grown business, which I want to thrive, crippled by business rates that sometimes cost more than its rent? There is nothing I can do and no one we can go to. That is the frustration with business rates at the moment.

It is all very well for the valuation office to say that rates are set in stone, but in times of economic crisis or in a pandemic, we need flexibility. I say to the Minister, please, set up a system whereby businesses can appeal. They are crying out for help. We have already heard that there will be a review, but reviews take time. Many of these businesses are struggling and need help right now.

The other shopping centre in my constituency, Newbridge, is home to Newbridge rugby football club and world champion boxer Joe Calzaghe. Anybody who wants to visit an example of an art deco theatre would do well to come to Newbridge Memo and see for themselves how a working men’s institute has been taken over and become a thriving, beating heart of the community. But Newbridge faces the same problem: many shops are boarded up, which looks terrible when people walk down the street. Next Saturday, the Co-operative store in Newbridge will close its doors for the last time, which is very sad. We have campaigned to keep it in place. The next nearest Co-ops are in Oakdale, which is two miles away, and then further down in Machen in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). People will not be able to shop for their groceries locally in Newbridge.

I was pleased when a local businessman contacted me and said, “I want to take over the business.” He owns a number of businesses so it would be an excellent move, but the one thing that was holding him back was, yet again, the business rates. As many hon. Friends have said, business rates in Wales are frozen currently, and I hope, for my English counterparts, that the Government take on board that example. There will come a time, however, when business rates will be unfrozen and will have to be paid. What future do people have when they know that time bomb is ticking?

The Government need to look again at business rates. People need help now. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches have talked about increasing VAT. There was a very good speech earlier about increasing it by 3p in the pound, but that is wrong for two reasons. First, VAT is an inherently regressive tax, because people are taxed on what they spend, which means that the poorest people in society pay it. Secondly, the packet of measures that was put in place in 2008 after the financial crash by the then Chancellor, Alistair Darling, included a reduction in VAT to ensure that people got out there and started spending in shops so that money flowed through the economy. Increasing value added tax is asking the poorest people in society to bear the burden.

When I was a child, as I said at the start of my speech, going to the high street was an event. We need to make it easier for people to go there. I ask the Government to put in place measures for local councils to offer free parking and, when shops are boarded up, short-term lets and business rate holidays to ensure that there are thriving businesses in the high street. There is much to be done. The high street—that feature of British society—is on the critical list. We have to do something now.

18:54

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), who gave a very impassioned speech about his constituency.

I have been somewhat struck by much of the debate, which has rightly focused on non-domestic rates. In that regard, we know that non-domestic rates is a devolved matter in Scotland and that the Scottish Government have made the decision that the retail and hospitality sector will continue to have a full exemption from rates until the end of this financial year, in contrast to the supposed party of business on the Government Benches. However, there is one huge issue—a massive elephant in the room—that I was astonished that the shadow Chancellor did not talk about. Indeed, very few Members in this Chamber have spoken about the issue: the obvious difficulties caused by Brexit. We have businesses up and down Scotland, and up and down the entirety of the UK, that cannot recruit staff and cannot get their hands on the goods they need to sell to their customers to keep themselves going.

Small businesses that want to export are facing exponentially longer delays in comparison with what happened before. I spoke to those at a local business in Aberdeen recently. They exports their goods, which is what they want to do—they want to grow their business, which is everything we want to see in our local community—and it has gone from taking a couple of days to almost six weeks to export a good to the European Union. If we are talking about challenges for small businesses and the really big issues that face them, yes, non-domestic rates is undoubtedly one of those—it needs to be addressed, and I think all politicians of all parties agree on that—but we cannot ignore Brexit or simply pretend that it is not happening, although that is what it feels is taking place in this Chamber. It is quite astonishing.

Beyond Brexit and beyond non-domestic rates, we also see small businesses having to deal with the rise, or the proposed rise, in national insurance contributions. They cannot get hold of the staff and they cannot get hold of the goods, and when they try to export it takes much longer than it should—and their non-domestic rates are an issue, particularly it appears for those in English constituencies—but they also now have an additional tax burden for the staff they employ, yet this Government still try to keep up the guise of being one that supports small businesses.

There is one more issue that is extremely pertinent that I do not feel has necessarily been discussed or given the full attention of this House that it deserves, which is the energy price crisis. We know that households right across Scotland and the UK are facing exponential rises in their energy bills. However, it does not just stop at households; it affects businesses too, particularly small businesses. This is something they did not expect to happen, yet this Government have come forward with absolutely no support for them whatsoever. We have tax rises, we have Brexit and of course we have an energy price crisis. It is a perfect storm of challenges facing our high streets, and I would respectfully suggest that the Government should have done better on each and every one of those issues.

That takes me to my final point, which is on bricks and clicks. It is about how we get rid of the difficult situation of having online retailers not having a physical presence within the local community and the benefit they reap from doing so. How we solve that has been discussed in this Chamber at length throughout my time in this House, but what I really struggle with is the Government simply saying that the digital services tax was enough and that that was the way to resolve the problem. Quite clearly, that was not sufficient, and it was never going to be sufficient.

While we have a situation in which someone can sell their goods online cheaper than they can in a store, ultimately businesses will move online. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) rightly put it, that is not just a challenge that faces Scotland or the UK, but a much bigger challenge, and all the pandemic has done is to accelerate the difficulties in that regard. We cannot sit here and moan about the challenges facing our high streets if we are unwilling to take that issue head-on.

19:00

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

The impact of the covid pandemic has been excruciating for many people in Ilford South and for the majority of people in this country, not least the many who run businesses and their workers, and this is now coupled with the steep rise in living costs and the supply chain crisis caused, to be honest, by Brexit and the Government’s indecisive action as well as the global pandemic. Too many businesses in this country are now at breaking point, so we are debating today not just business rates but how imperative it is for the Government to give greater support to all sectors of our economy to ensure we emerge stronger, and especially to the small and independent businesses that are the bedrock of economic success in Britain, certainly in my constituency.

We on this side of the House have set out clear plans for how a Labour Government would increase the small business rates relief threshold from £15,000 to £25,000, exactly the kind of welcome tax cut small businesses so desperately need, and a future Labour Government would go further, scrapping business rates and putting in place a fairer taxation system that supports small businesses and boosts local economies such as that of Ilford South. Sadly, however, this Government have demonstrated time and again that “build back better” is little more than hollow rhetoric from a tired Cabinet devoid of ideas that has repeatedly let down so many people through a catalogue of policy failures, whether the derisory 1% pay rise for NHS workers, slashing welfare support for the most vulnerable in our society, or hiking national insurance for everyone. The failure to address business rates is the latest kick in the teeth for millions across this country.

In my constituency there are now 7,975 unemployment benefit claimants—8.4% of the population aged under 64. The number of new claimants has increased by 4,795, more than doubling, since just a year ago in March 2020. People are really suffering, and getting businesses back on their feet is crucial to moving us forward.

This is not just rhetoric; there are cold, hard facts that the Government are increasingly choosing to ignore. The Office for National Statistics published data last week revealing that a staggering 332,000 businesses are at risk of closure in the next three months; in the capital alone, that figure stands at 62,000. In Ilford South, over the past year the number of medium-sized businesses fell by 11%, and although smaller businesses and microbusinesses are doing well they need the right support to become sustainable and provide stable longer-term employment.

Understandably, the business sector has been united in its alarm at the current direction of travel. The national chair of the Federation of Small Businesses yesterday said that the ONS figures demonstrated

“just how desperate the need for business rates reform is.”

To give some sense of just how desperate businesses are, the British Retail Consortium has claimed that four out of five retailers will have to close branches if business rates are not alleviated. That was compounded by the Confederation of British Industry, and almost 50 trade associations representing a quarter of all jobs in Britain, adding that up to 50% of business investment is being harmed by business rates under the present system. Cutting those rates would unlock billions of pounds of investment in our economy and keep millions of people in work. The CBI’s chief economist was also crystal clear:

“Any can-kicking—or further business tax rises—would be seen a lost opportunity by firms of all sizes given the desire from both business and government to really go for growth.”

This was echoed by the director general of the British Chamber of Commerce, who last month stated emphatically that the current arrangements are

“a barrier to investment and cause an unnecessarily large burden to be placed upon businesses regardless of their ability to pay.”

That is a resounding call to action now.

If this Government will not listen to the overwhelming concerns of British businesses, perhaps they will listen to those on their own Benches, including the right hon. Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) and for Tatton (Esther McVey) who, on behalf of the Northern Research Group and Blue Collar Conservativism respectively, have called on the Chancellor to slash business rates, saying that

“failure to act will risk the party losing a string of northern seats at the next election.”

“Build back better” is not really turning out that way for small businesses.

Small independent businesses, which are the backbone of our communities, should not be made to pay the price for the pandemic. They need support, and they need it now. That is why we brought this debate forward today. I will be interested to hear whether the Minister can tell the House how we can expect to recover if we have let thousands of the businesses that prop up our economy go to the wall, as they have in Ilford South, with that 11% drop.

Just this week, the manager of Ilford business improvement district told me that covid has taken

“a catastrophic toll on many of our stakeholder businesses,”

adding that the majority are

“working their way back from the cliff edge of permanent closure in the midst of supply shortages, staff shortages, rising staff and operational costs”.

That comes on top of the withdrawal of support measures such as the furlough scheme, business rates relief and reductions in VAT.

One hotelier I spoke to expressed concerns about the impact of rising energy costs, the shortage of staff since Brexit and, again, supply chain shortages, which are leading to a never-ending situation of one problem after another. That hotelier, Ikram, and many others like him in Ilford South have requested breathing space in the form of a reduction in business rates, or at least a one- year exemption.

The Government must urgently initiate a full and fundamental review of business rates and look to permanently maintain the reduced 12.5% VAT rate for sectors such as the hospitality industry, as well as considering extending that offer to retail businesses. They must also look to offer further business rates relief and consider a similar phased approach in the next financial year, with a 60% threshold to support businesses.

The Government talk a lot about levelling up; they also need to level the playing field. Amazon and the like have made huge profits during the covid crisis while paying next to nothing in taxes as a proportion of their profit, often undercutting local high street shops and leaving so many high streets with boarded-up shops. We need to shift the burden of business taxation away from the high street and towards global online tech giants by adopting a higher global minimum rate of corporation tax to stop major tax dodging.

The pandemic has shown that taking an economic approach in which we are not afraid to intervene when necessary to protect our workers’ jobs and local businesses is surely better than taking one that sacrifices everything in the name of the market, with public sector commercialisation, communities destroyed by disappearing jobs, national identities distorted and, of course, environmental catastrophe. Pay increases and tax avoidance at the top warp any sense of social inclusion, and progressive and redistributive taxes seem to fall from the political agenda as so many workers face the perpetual slog of longer hours in ever more insecure work as white-collar jobs are outsourced and blue-collar jobs go abroad.

The power and unaccountability of global tech giants is now impacting our very democracy. We must use this moment to lay a different pathway for our economy, because there most definitely is an alternative.

19:07

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), who raises so many valuable points about businesses up and down the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) mentioned weddings. I come from a Nigerian background, in which weddings are such a joyous occasion for families and an opportunity for many people to travel to the UK. They come not just for the wedding but to support our local businesses. That is the time when many of those family members have their annual holiday, and they shop, supporting so many businesses, and stay in our hotels. It is not just the wedding industry that benefits; so many other people benefit from having that tourism and trade coming into the UK.

Over the past 19 months, businesses in Vauxhall have really suffered. They have seen footfall through their doors reduce. If we are honest, the measures introduced to tackle coronavirus have led to many businesses having to shut their doors. Others have had to adapt to new ways of commerce, and those that needed to stay open found themselves having to change, in some cases overnight, as the Government guidelines changed.

Many of the businesses in Vauxhall that I have spoken to operate on tight margins for both cost and revenue, and they face another double whammy in the coming months. Not only do they face having to repay large debts that they have stored up because of covid and the Government failure to support some key businesses, but many of the businesses in my constituency have a higher rateable value, so they did not qualify for the business rates relief. They are still struggling now. They have lost a large chunk of the tourists who come through, and they are having to rely on local people to help support them. The Government may have lifted restrictions in the UK, but our high infection rates mean that many countries continue to place restrictions on travel from this country. I chair the South Bank Partnership Forum, which brings together many businesses in and around the south bank. The forum’s figures estimated that 100 million people passed through Waterloo station each year alone. We have not seen those figures come back, and they will probably not come back for a very long time.

We cannot pretend that the impact of this pandemic is over for businesses. The Government need to take real measures to support businesses not just in Vauxhall but right across the country. Saving our high streets is a vital part of that. It makes economic sense, because as many hon. Members have said, high streets provide an economic boost to so many of our communities. I started my working life on our high street in Clapham in Sainsbury’s, in that bright orange uniform many hon. Members may remember, but so many of our high streets and their shops are closing. Yesterday, I met members of Lambeth Pensioners Action Group. They highlighted issues around returning to the high street and getting to the high street.

I hope the Government will listen to all the issues Labour Members have raised and support the motion. We cannot just keep talking about reforming business rates; it is time for us to act and reform them once and for all.

19:10

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate, and I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for the contributions they have made. I may not be able to mention them all.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) talked about the challenges small businesses face. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) talked with passion about her constituency and the importance of connectivity. She invited us all for a drink in Ye Olde White Harte, an offer I am very glad to take up.

From the Government Benches, the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) took the St Augustine approach. They were all in favour of business rate reform, just not yet.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) spoke of the plight of the travel industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) spoke of the thousands of jobs lost in the music and creative industries, and of the help given to business by the Welsh Labour Government.

The hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) spoke thoughtfully about the importance of connectivity and the changing role of our high streets. The hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) spoke about how economic and consumer practices have changed through covid.

My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) spoke about the crucial importance of the wedding industry and the spin-off industries it gives rise to. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke of his frustration, shared by many Members, of the baked-in variations in valuation, with no apparent process of redress or appeal. Every single Member who spoke in this debate spoke with passion about their high streets, their constituencies and the small businesses within them.

[Huw Merriman]

The point I would just gently make, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), is that we called for business rates to be reformed right now and indeed came up with a proposal that would cost it right now, too. I hope the right hon. Gentleman might reflect on that and come up with his own.

[Mr McFadden]

I am happy to talk about our proposals and the hint we got on what the eventual outcome might be.

We tabled this proposal because we want to support Britain’s businesses as they try to recover from the pandemic. Many physical retailers could not trade at all during the pandemic. Consumers changed their habits and went online. Our high streets were shuttered and closed. The problem of business rates is well known and has been for a long time: they are weighted against high streets; they are weighted on physical versus online businesses; and they create negative incentives for investment. If someone invests in their business, does the right thing and does their bit for the transition to a greener economy, their business rates actually go up. It is a 20th-century tax for a 21st-century economy.

Our calls for reform have met with widespread support from the business community. UKHospitality says that the biggest cost danger in sight for the hospitality sector is the reintroduction of business rates from 2022. The Federation of Small Businesses said that business rates

“hits firms before they’ve even made a pound in turnover.”

The CBI said that business rates are

“literally…a tax on investment”.

The British Retail Consortium found that without a reduction in rates next year, 83% of retailers said that it was “very likely” or “certain” that they might have to close stores. The Institute for Family Business has also backed this call.

In the short term, businesses need help. That is why our proposal, in the motion before the House, sets out positive steps that will help businesses right now: a freeze on business rates; an increase in the threshold for small business rate reliefs; and a proposal that is fully costed and fully funded.

The Government know that business rates need reform. That is why they launched a review 15 months ago, but where is it? Where are the conclusions? Where is the Chancellor’s plan on business rates? Has it not been published because he is fighting with No. 10 about it, as he is over climate change? Has he not published it because he is fighting with the Business Secretary, as he is on industrial support?

But we did get a clue as to what the preference of Government Members is, because many Members went for the Tory party’s three favourite initials: VAT. Time and again in Government, when they have needed to raise money, they have gone for VAT. We do not yet know what the conclusions of the business rate review will be, but the prospect of the VATman returning is certainly possible given the contributions that we have heard today.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McFadden]

I cannot; I have to watch the clock. We put forward a plan both for the short term and the long term, but this is not just about business rates, is it? This is about the broader relationship between politics and business. The Opposition want a partnership with business to help the country to recover from the covid pandemic. We will not blame businesses for every shortage of workers or every shortage of goods. We will not use business as a weapon in ideological battles, as we saw throughout every day of the recent Conservative party conference. And we certainly will not go down the absurd road of trying to retrofit a justification for shortages and problems by claiming that they were part of some plan all along. When there is chaos at the pumps, blame business. When there is chaos at the ports, blame business. When there are shortages on the shelves, blame business. We have heard far too much of that from the Conservative party in recent weeks and, because of that, it has forfeited its right to be called the party of business.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McFadden]

I will not. And the Conservative party willingly gave that up by putting ideology in its place. When the Prime Minister said “f*** business”, some of us thought it was a quip. We did not expect to see it followed through by briefings on and off the record that business is part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Any serious party of Government has to take wealth creation as seriously as it does wealth distribution. It has to celebrate entrepreneurs, not blame them. It has to champion creativity and innovation. It has to move its policies in line with economic change and the ceaseless process of technological change. That is what we on the Opposition side of the House are doing. Businesses will find, in today’s Labour party, a ready partner that wants to see them grow and see a fair deal for their employees; that wants to see both prosperity and security for the people who work in business; and that will work with business, not blame them for the failures and consequences of Government decisions. That is what this motion is about, that is what this argument is about, and that is the case we will continue to make.

19:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. First, can we celebrate and commend the small businesses up and down the country that have been so hard-pressed during the pandemic, especially in the areas that we have heard about today—hospitality, retail, leisure, tourism and indeed travel?

Businesses have shown incredible resilience throughout the pandemic and it is right that we support them, as the Government have done with £352 billion-worth of immediate financial support through loans, grants, the furlough scheme and various reliefs. That leaves us, as free market Conservatives who do not believe in big interventions but who are the Government with probably the biggest intervention since the war, with 352 billion reasons to get the recovery right and build resilience into our economy.

All I have heard from Opposition Members for nearly three hours is re-diagnosis of the problems. We can all agree that business rates need reform: that is why the Chancellor launched the fundamental business rates review. It is not starting now; we are concluding it now. It is looking at the entire scope of the business rates system, from the multiplier and reliefs for plant and machinery to billing, the administration of the system and alternative taxes. All those matters are being looked at and the report will be coming in the autumn.

I have heard nothing from the Opposition as an actual response. One can say that everything is funded and costed, but saying that does not mean that it is actually there. We have heard pledges from the Opposition to scrap business rates; that is £26 billion, and we have heard nothing about how it will be paid for. We have heard about freezing business rates until the end of the financial year; that is another £6 billion. What are they going to do to pay for it?

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who talked about changing high streets, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who proposed changes to VAT. He made a cogent argument, albeit a controversial one—at least he came up with a solution that he had costed and threw it into the mix. That is the difference between Government Members and the Opposition: we come up with solutions that businesses can understand and that we can debate and work through.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) was accused of talking down his area. Actually, he was talking about the issues that he is tackling and that he is bringing together and convening people to tackle, such as antisocial behaviour. He is doing things like that through the town deal that he is championing. He raised the future high streets fund, which is already bringing empty properties back into use—there is a lot of infrastructure going on and it is already delivering upgrades. He also talked about shopping parades. It is really important that we talk about retail parks and shopping parades as well as high streets: they are part of the ecosystem of our local economy.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The shadow Chancellor did present a short-term solution: a sixfold increase in the digital services tax. Does my hon. Friend agree that when we implemented the digital services tax, Amazon added that 2% straight on to the prices of the merchants on its site? Does he accept that if there were an increase, it would be passed directly to consumers?

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. We also heard about business rates being scrapped and replaced with a property tax—on a property that would presumably be owned by a business, and I guess we could use our rating system to work it out. Essentially, that is just semantics, not a systematic and effective way of replacing business rates. That is why the fundamental review is so important.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) made a comparison to Chris Hemsworth and talked about the Great British Mead Company, which reminds me of the importance of the hospitality sector as part of the ecosystem of our local and night-time economy and indeed the high street. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) talked about opportunity and connectivity, which are at the heart of what we are doing to allow high streets to bounce back further.

All I have heard is negativity from the Opposition with no answer, but we are making sure that the 352 billion reasons to allow the economy to bounce back are as effective as possible. Our plan is working. Our unemployment rate is at less than 5% and falling, which is lower than France, America, Canada, Italy and Spain. We have one of the fastest recoveries of any major economy in the world, and GDP is growing. That shows that the Government’s approach is a success and that we have fostered the right environment for the economy to grow.

The Labour party will never admit this, but the UK is a great place to do business. We have the lowest corporate tax rates in the G20, and the kind of lean regulation that puts us in the global top ten for ease of doing business. Next year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will publish an enterprise strategy which will explain how we want to revive Britain’s spirit of enterprise and help more people to start and scale up a business.

It is easy to see why the UK is consistently home to one of the largest and most resilient economies in the world. All this underlies the reason why it has long been a great place to do business, and why we are seeing so much excitement in the rest of the world about investing in the UK. People are queuing up to spend at the global investment summit that is being held today. In the last 10 months, we have already seen a flurry of spending in the UK: there is to be a gigafactory in Sunderland, Ford and Stellantis are churning out electric vehicles in the north-west, and GE Renewable Energy and others are creating an offshore wind hub in Teesside. Those projects constitute a huge vote of confidence in the UK as a place to do business as we recover from the pandemic.

We have been there for small businesses since the start of the pandemic, we are there for them now, and we will be there for them for as long as they need us. I want to ensure that as we move forward into this area of recovery, we build resilience into our economy as well. We will do that through the fundamental review of business rates and through our enterprise strategy, and by making sure that we stand behind our businesses.

Question put:

19:26

Division 85

Ayes: 215

---

Labour: 163
Scottish National Party: 30
Liberal Democrat: 10
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1

Noes: 298

---

Conservative: 295

Business without Debate

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Water Industry

That the draft Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from Non-Household Retail Market) (Consequential Provision) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 20 July, be approved.—(Scott Mann.)

Question agreed to.

Committees

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With the leave of the House, we will take motions 7 to 11 together.

Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

Ordered,

That Damian Hinds and Mrs Heather Wheeler be discharged from the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Simon Jupp and Jane Stevenson be added.

Education

That David Johnston and David Simmonds be discharged from the Education Committee and Miriam Cates and Brendan Clarke-Smith be added.

Housing, Communities and Local Government

That Ian Levy be discharged from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and Matt Vickers be added.

Science and Technology

That Andrew Griffith be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Dehenna Davison be added.

Treasury

That Steve Baker be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Gareth Davies be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is very good to see the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) here in person, instead of on all those screens; lately, I had to see him nine times when we did these motions, so it is lovely to see him only once.

Petition

Fossil Fuel Industry: Regulation of Investments

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Scott Mann.)

19:42

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

In 1998, a PR consultant was working with big fossil fuel companies. He was grappling with a problem: the Kyoto protocol had just been signed. This landmark agreement reflected the scientific consensus that human-made carbon dioxide emissions were driving global warming and threatening climate catastrophe. It committed Governments to cutting carbon to avert this calamity. But for the PR consultant and fossil fuel companies, this was not a step forward—it was an existential problem. If Governments cut carbon, that would mean less oil bought and sold. It would mean smaller dividends for big oil’s shareholders and smaller bonuses for executives. Profits for fossil fuel companies were under threat, and they could not have that.

So the PR consultant devised a plan. In a memo to the trade association of the fossil fuel companies, he outlined a plan: a comprehensive, international campaign to change public opinion on the climate emergency. The plan aimed to cast doubt on the scientific consensus, by funding think tanks and media campaigns, and buying off a tiny minority of scientists. The campaign aimed to manufacture doubt about the science of the climate emergency. The PR consultant wrote that the goal of the project was for the public to “recognise that significant uncertainties exist in climate science.”

Victory, he said, would be achieved when

“those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of science, appear to be out of touch with reality.”

But it was not that the fossil fuel companies were ignorant of the science—far from it. In 1979, a paper from the global oil giant Exxon said that the burning of fossil fuels

“will cause dramatic environmental effects in the coming decades.”

A few years later, another memo warned of the “potentially catastrophic” consequences of a refusal to cut emissions. In 1982, an internal document admitted that the science was “unanimous”. But because their profits were threatened, fossil fuel companies buried the truth. Just as the PR consultant advised, the companies poured millions into think-tanks, scientists and politicians who spread climate denial. In 2001, when President George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto protocol and its ambition to cut emissions, he told a fossil fuel-funded lobby group that his decision was

“in part, based on input from you”.

Today, although the fossil fuel industry’s methods might have been updated, its aim remains the same. More than 95% of the expenditure of fossil fuel giants such as BP is on oil and gas, but they spend millions on advertising campaigns that boast about their meagre low-carbon energy output.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this important issue to the House for this Adjournment debate. Does she agree that our eco-responsibility can and does extend into all aspects of our lives? Does she accept that we have a fiscal responsibility to ensure that any divestment of pension funds does not result in slashed pensions but enables investors to be beneficiaries in not only conscience but finance?

[Zarah Sultana]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I will come on to our pension fund and our responsibility to divest, especially as we are hosting COP, which brings urgency to that.

Shell has spent $84 billion on fossil fuel exploration and development in the space of a few years, but it then asks its social media followers what consumers need to do to cut carbon. As a Harvard expert on the fossil fuel industry’s lobbying put it, these companies have gone from “blatant” denialism to

“more subtle and insidious forms of delayism.”

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The fossil fuel industry’s historical record is being uncovered, showing how it has spent decades propagating climate denialism and disinformation—protecting its profits while endangering our future. There is no doubt about it: these companies do not have our welfare at heart. They do not have the same interests as my constituents. What is good for fossil fuel billionaires spells disaster for children in Coventry’s schools. If there are profits to be made, these companies will extract and exploit, burning fossil fuels and our planet along with them.

Next month, Britain hosts COP26. We have a responsibility to show leadership on the world stage, demonstrating that we will rise to this historic challenge with the bold actions needed to avert climate catastrophe, taking on fossil fuel executives and transforming our economy for people and planet. Here is how the House must contribute to this historic task. First, Members of this House past and present are automatically members of a pension fund—a fund that invests in climate-destroying fossil fuel companies. Put simply, our pensions fund environmental destruction. For younger Members like me, on current trajectories, by the time I am old enough for my pension, temperatures will have soared well above the 1.5°C required by the Paris agreement, collapsing food systems, melting ice caps and causing extreme weather to become the norm.

With the world’s eyes now on us, we in this House can demonstrate real leadership by divesting Parliament from fossil fuels, and showing public commitment to taking our money out of the deadly fossil fuel industry and instead putting it to the public good and investing in the green technologies of the future. More than 360 current and former MPs from all parties in the House have pledged to support the Divest Parliament campaign. Under that pressure, and after letters from myself and colleagues, investments in the fossil fuel industry have fallen, but they have not been eliminated. There is still no plan to align our pensions with the 1.5°C global heating limit, and the full portfolio of investments remains a secret. So, as we prepare to host COP26 we in this House are still funding climate destruction. Here is my message to the pension fund trustees today: reveal the fund’s full investment; divest fully from fossil fuels; and show that this House will lead the fight to save our planet.

Back-Bench Members can do only so much. Real change must come from those on the Government Front Bench, because while the Government hide behind empty slogans and meagre promises, they back investment in new fossil fuel projects—from the Cambo oilfield where 170 million barrels of oil are set to be extracted, which will emit more than 10 times Scotland’s annual carbon output, pouring fuel on the fire of a burning planet, to investments abroad such as the Mozambique liquid natural gas project, to which the Government pledged more than $1 billion in financial support, fuelling not just climate breakdown, but human rights abuses, too.

Then there are the subsidies that the Government provide to the fossil fuel sector, recently estimated to be as much as £12.8 billion a year, ranking the UK as one of the worst of the OECD nations. These subsidies mean that, while Shell reportedly paid the Norwegian Government £1.3 billion in taxes in a year, in the UK, Shell itself was paid a rebate of £72 million of public money. That is scandalous. The Government cannot hide behind misleading definitions and technicalities and they must stop subsidising an industry that is killing our planet.

Then there is the role of British banks. The Government like to boast about London being the heart of the global financial system, but forget to mention that British banks are world leaders in funding fossil fuel companies. UK banks Barclays and HSBC rank among the worst in the world, having provided £158 billion in fossil fuel finance since the Paris agreement was signed, handing the likes of Shell and BP the fortunes they need to extract the fuels that are setting our world alight.

If we are to avert climate catastrophe, in place of a financial system that puts fossil fuel profits before people and planet we need a wholesale rewiring of financial institutions, putting capital to work for the public good, not private greed. We need a much wider economic transformation, too. We need a programme of change to avert climate catastrophe and to transform our economy and society in the interests of the many. That is the green new deal. I am proud to be co-sponsoring the Green New Deal Bill, alongside colleagues including the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis).

The green new deal recognises the urgency of tackling climate breakdown, with a 2030 net zero target—not the 2050 target that condemns us to climate catastrophe—and it would reach that target through decarbonisation with the interests of working people front and centre. Yes, it means rapidly winding down and repurposing the fossil fuel industry by taking majority public stakes in fossil fuel companies, but doing so while every worker impacted gets a Government-backed jobs guarantee, ensuring that they get a well-paid, unionised job and are not left on the scrapheap as has happened in past industrial transitions.

The green new deal would not stop there. It would initiate a massive state-led programme of investment in green industries, from building the wind farms and solar panels to power our future to generating the low-carbon jobs in care and teaching that our communities need. Our Bill spells out how this programme would create millions of good, well-paid unionised jobs, and it would not be paid for off the backs of our workers. It spells out that a green new deal would raise income taxes only on the highest earners and introduce a wealth tax to make the super-rich pay their fair share. To transition from an economy that relies on fossil fuels that kill our planet, it would bring industries such as rail, energy and water into public ownership to rapidly cut carbon, building a high-tech, low emissions, publicly owned transport of the future.

So long as this Government and this House—us MPs—fund the fossil fuel industry, backing new projects such as the Cambo oilfield and pipelines across southern Africa, they can speak with no authority at COP26. They are not part of the answer to the climate emergency; they are simply part of the problem. Instead of investing in fossil fuels, it is time to invest in a green new deal. There is no time to waste.

19:54

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) on securing this debate on an issue that we all agree is of crucial importance. I will do my best to do justice to this broad and complex issue in the allotted time, focusing my remarks on my brief as Economic Secretary to the Treasury, with oversight of financial services, which the hon. Lady mentioned on a number of occasions.

Let me begin by stating the obvious: the Government take their responsibility to tackle climate change extremely seriously. That is why in June 2019 the UK became the first major economy to legislate to end our net contribution to climate change by 2050, increasing the ambition of existing commitments under the Climate Change Act 2008, which was introduced by the Labour Government in that year. Just today, we published our net zero strategy, outlining measures to transition to a green and sustainable future.

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the crucial role of finance and investment in addressing the challenge of climate change. I am pleased to reassure her that we are implementing a credible, practical plan to align that investment to climate change goals, with multiple strands of activity, including engagement with the oil and gas industry, the greening of finance and action on the international stage.

Our view is that we need actively to engage with and work with fossil fuel companies to get them to reform, and that approach is working. Earlier this year, we agreed the North sea transition deal with the oil and gas industry, to support workers, businesses and the supply chain in preparation for a net zero future by 2050, including the reduction of emissions by 50% by 2030. We also agreed joint Government and oil and gas sector investment of up to £16 billion by 2030 to reduce carbon emissions, with up to £3 billion to replace fossil fuel-based power supplies on oil and gas platforms with renewable energy, up to £3 billion on carbon capture, usage and storage, and up to £10 billion for hydrogen production. Indeed, since 2010 more than £94 billion has been invested in clean energy in the UK.

From my perspective as City Minister, we clearly also need continuous and increasing green investment right across the board, as the hon. Lady called for. I am delighted that yesterday we published “A Roadmap to Sustainable Investing”, which will help every financial decision—and decision maker—to take climate and the environment into account.

[Zarah Sultana]

Does the Minister support the call that I made in my speech to divest from fossil fuels in our pensions fund? Will the Government support the more than 360 MPs who are supporting the Divest Parliament campaign? It is really important to make the statement ahead of COP26 that this House is committed to divesting, fully and immediately, from fossil fuels.

[John Glen]

It is absolutely the case that the UK pensions and investment sectors—asset owners, asset managers and the service providers that support them—have an important role to play, using their influence and ownership rights over investee companies while fulfilling those fiduciary responsibilities. The Financial Reporting Council’s stewardship code 2020 sets that gold standard for such stewardship activities. The Government expect asset owners, managers and their service providers to progress work on stewardship within their organisation. That will obviously be a matter for the trustees of individual funds to attend to.

The roadmap on sustainable investment sets out details of the new whole-economy sustainability disclosure requirements—the legislative and regulatory changes that will be made to deliver world-leading reporting standards for environmental sustainability. Under these changes, companies and investment products will, for the first time, need to set out the environmental impact of the activities that they finance according to a universal definition of green. At the same time, products must clearly justify any sustainability claims that they make. It is our expectation that firms will use this information to actively engage with investee companies and encourage businesses and shareholders to set, and act on, credible net zero transition plans.

But I recognise that Government too must take action. Another part of our strategy has therefore been to establish markets to mobilise private capital. That is the thinking behind our green gilt, the first issuance of which last month was the largest ever sovereign green bond issuance, of £10 billion, and was 10 times over-subscribed. It is also part of the rationale for the creation of the UK Infrastructure Bank, which has a specific mandate to help tackle climate change, particularly the transition to net zero by 2050. I was pleased just last week to meet John Flint, the chief executive, who is putting together the team at the UK Infrastructure Bank in Leeds to move forward the investment decisions, and that organisation, as quickly as possible.

Looking at the financial numbers, there are already some grounds for optimism. The UK’s world-leading investment banks are consistently ranked at the top of the global green and sustainable debt underwriting league tables. In the UK, almost half—49%—of the £9.4 trillion in assets were integrating ESG, or environmental, social and governance, in their investment processes last year, up from a reported 37% the previous year. In other words, as City Minister I see a sector that is increasingly innovating and investing in green. On the hon. Lady’s point, that does not mean that we are complacent, but it does demonstrate the irreversible direction that has been set and the progress that is rapidly being made.

We need to remember that this is also a global problem requiring a global solution, as the hon. Lady acknowledged. That is not an excuse for inaction but rather a simple acknowledgement of the reality. The Government are acting nationally and internationally, and here there are some further reasons for optimism. As a country, we need to be part of a global effort to turn this around, and we are, including as host of next month’s COP26 conference. About 70% of the world’s economy is now covered by net zero targets, up from less than 30% when the UK took on the presidency of COP26. Under the UK’s presidency, all G7 countries committed to put an end to funding fossil fuels and coal power this year. Japan and South Korea have said that they will end public financing for overseas coal-fired power plants, with China then committing to not building any new coal power plants overseas.

When it comes to transitioning the finance sector, too, we are part of an international effort. In April, the UK played a key role in the launch of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. When the UK assumed the COP presidency in partnership with Italy 18 months ago, $5 trillion of private financial assets were committed to net zero. Now 300 financial institutions across 40 countries, controlling balance sheets of $100 trillion, are co-ordinating their efforts under this alliance.

I agree with the hon. Lady that the stakes are high, but I hope I have shown that the Government are acting on many fronts in engaging, legislating and investing. I am certainly not complacent, just as the Government as a whole are not complacent. We will continue to do all that we can and all that needs to be done to address this global and significant challenge.

Question put and agreed to.

20:03

House adjourned.

Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2021

Tuesday 19th October 2021 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: † Geraint Davies

† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con)

† Bacon, Gareth (Orpington) (Con)

† Courts, Robert (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport)

† Docherty-Hughes, Martin (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)

Eagle, Dame Angela (Wallasey) (Lab)

† Johnson, Dr Caroline (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)

† Jones, Andrew (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)

† Kane, Mike (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)

† Kawczynski, Daniel (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)

Lewis, Clive (Norwich South) (Lab)

† Lloyd, Tony (Rochdale) (Lab)

† Mackinlay, Craig (South Thanet) (Con)

† Merriman, Huw (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)

† Mortimer, Jill (Hartlepool) (Con)

† Solloway, Amanda (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Stringer, Graham (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)

† Twist, Liz (Blaydon) (Lab)

Chloe Freeman, Guy Mathers, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Second Delegated Legislation Committee

Tuesday 19 October 2021

[Geraint Davies in the Chair]

Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2021

09:25

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I would like to remind Members to observe social distancing and only to sit in places that are clearly marked. I would also like to remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to [e-mail].

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2021.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Davies.

The draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. The Act created a more flexible set of powers for Ministers to implement slot alleviation measures related to the impact of covid-19, subject to a vote, of course, in both Houses. It allows us to tailor our responses in ways that were not possible before the Act. Ordinarily, airlines must operate slots 80% of the time in order to retain the right to the same slots the following—that is known as the 80:20 rule or the “use it or lose it” rule. However, the powers provided by the Act enable the Secretary of State to provide alleviation from that rule if he is satisfied that there is a reduction in demand due to the covid-19 pandemic, and that the reduction is likely to persist.

Under normal circumstances, the 80:20 rule helps to encourage the efficient use of scarce airport capacity while allowing airlines a degree of flexibility in their operations. In response to the covid-19 pandemic, the EU Commission waived the 80:20 rule for the summer 2020 and winter 2020 seasons. Following the UK’s departure from the EU, the UK Government decided to extend the waiver to cover the summer 2021 season, which runs until 30 October, through the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2021, which we debated earlier this year.

By providing airlines with the legal certainty that they would be able to retain their slots even if not operated, the commercial impacts of the covid-19 outbreak on the industry were mitigated. That is because airlines might have otherwise opted to incur the financial costs—the loss—of operating flights at low load factors merely to retain those slots. The policy also supported sustainability by reducing the likelihood of needless emissions from near-empty aircraft.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The Minister is talking about the potential commercial impact of not making the changes in the regulations. Unfortunately, the statutory instrument is not accompanied by a regulatory impact statement because, according to the explanatory note, the proposals are expected to last for less than a year. When one reads the amendment to article 2 of Council Regulation No. 95/93 in sub-paragraph (4) (b) it refers to November 2023, which is more than 12 months. Can the Minister explain that discrepancy?

[The Chair]

May I inform the Committee that I will call other Members to speak after the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson if anyone wants to elaborate on the matter? I am just making the point to keep interventions short.

[Robert Courts]

Thank you, Mr Davies. If I may, I will make some progress and return to the hon. Gentleman’s point in a moment.

Owing to the continued uncertainty and low passenger demand forecasts, we set out a package of measures on 19 July to alleviate slot usage requirements for the winter 2021 season, which runs from 31 October 2021 to 26 March 2022. That package was developed following consultation with the aviation industry and careful consideration of responses. It is fair to say that there were a range of views, from calls for a full waiver to support for no alleviation.

The draft instrument applies to England, Scotland and Wales. It is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland and does not therefore apply to it.

In the draft instrument, we have set out a package of alleviation measures that are designed to work together. They include changing the minimum usage ratio to 50:50, meaning that airlines are required to sue their slots at least 50% of the time to retain the right to operate those same slots in the following year. The reintroduction of a utilisation rate should encourage efficient slot use while also supporting sector recovery. There is a utilisation rate rather than a full waiver that we have seen in the past.

The draft regulations would also allow airlines that hand back a full series of slots to the slot co-ordinator before the start of the season to retain the right to operate that series of slots the following year. That will provide an opportunity for other airlines, including new entrants, to apply for and operate those slots on a temporary or ad hoc basis. The measure will apply to traded and leased slots, but not to newly allocated slots. That will prevent carriers from acquiring slots with no intention of using them. However, airlines that have announced that they have permanently ceased or will permanently cease operations at an airport before the start of the winter 2022 season will not benefit from the regulations in winter 2022.

The draft regulations expand the reasons that airlines may use to justify not using slots to include covid-19 related restrictions. That provides a guard against the risk of unforeseen covid-19 related measures or restrictions being imposed during the season. It will apply where unforeseen covid-19 related measures, including flight bans, quarantine or self-isolation requirements are applied at either end of a route and have a severe impact on demand for the route or the viability of it. That will apply where restrictions could not reasonably have been foreseen in time to hand back the full slot series. There will be a three-week recovery period during which the provisions, sometimes known as force majeure, may still apply following the end of the covid restrictions. That gives airports and airlines time to respond to any unforeseen restrictions. The measures will cover the winter 2021 scheduling period, from 31 October 2021 to 26 March 2022.

We are currently considering alleviation for summer 2022 and we plan to consult with industry and interested Members to inform our policy later this year.

The instrument provides the necessary relief for the aviation sector for the winter 2021 scheduling period. Through this package of measures we have aimed to strike a balance between supporting the financial health of the sector while encouraging recovery.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

The Minister said that Northern Ireland is excluded from the measure due to devolution. Can he expand on why it is good for them and not good for the rest of us?

[Robert Courts]

The reason is that aerodromes are a devolved matter in relation to Northern Ireland. There are also no co-ordinated slot airports in Northern Ireland, so the Northern Ireland Executive have agreed that it was not necessary for the powers of the 2021 Act to extend to, or apply in relation to, Northern Ireland.

I am conscious that I promised to respond to the query from the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton.

[Graham Stringer]

The Minister is seeking inspiration.

[The Chair]

It has flown over.

[Robert Courts]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me time to collect my thoughts. An assessment is always conducted of the impact of any measure that the Government introduce. Obviously, there is also a consultation period that takes into account the views of the sector. In any event that informal assessment is made, but hon. Gentleman asked about a formal impact assessment. In this case, we make provision for a period of less than 24 months, because the winter 2021 season lasts until March 2022 and any alleviation beyond that would require a fresh statutory instrument. I hope that clears up the matter, but I could come back to it later.

I commend the regulation to the Committee and I hope that everyone has found my remarks informative. I can deal with any other points when I reply to the debate.

[The Chair]

I will call the Opposition spokesperson next. There will be an opportunity for others to speak, but this particular slot is limited to one and a half hours and I do not expect it to go on for more than 80% of that.

09:35

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I certainly will not be taking up 80% of the slot, Mr Davies.

After yesterday’s events, nothing screams louder than a debate on airport slots on a Tuesday morning at 9.30 to say that democracy continues in the light of the terrible events that visited our colleague from Southend. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

We all know that no industry has been as badly hit by the covid-19 pandemic as the aviation sector. I and my colleagues have been fighting for support for a deal to help that industry until such a time it could bounce back on its own two feet. The sector is not just important to airport operators and airlines, but to all those in the supply chains and not forgetting our constituents, many of whom are desperate to get overseas after a really challenging 20 months for holidays, for business and to visit loved ones. It is crucial that we protect what we have, even more so in the absence of the sectoral deal that we called for.

The instrument before us will further suspend the usual rules around allocation of airport slots, often referred to as the “use it or lose it” clause, to enable an airline to have grandfather rights to them. We cannot take a chance on the future of the world’s third largest aviation industry, and so ensuring the current process continues, as it has since we originally met to discuss the regulations, is the right thing to do by the wider industry.

In saying that, I express a couple of caveats. At a time when no passengers were able to fly it was nonsensical to see empty flights taking off to preserve the slot allocation for a given airline. We know that there are historical issues with bigger airlines sitting on slots and preventing other airlines from entering the marketplace. At the height of the pandemic, we also saw some very poor practices by one or two of our major airlines in terms of hire and refire. They may carry our flag but do they carry our values? For that reason it is vital that we should be down here to support the Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on Friday.

Will the Minister assure me that the Government will react quickly to reassess the situation as the aviation industry reactivates? Recovery has been slow and UK airports and airlines have recovered at a slower rate than our European counterparts. That has much to do with the impact of the sector-specific deals that our major competitors established during the pandemic. It is vital that as we slowly emerge from the pandemic and rebuild our aviation sector, we build back green and build back better.

I look forward to working with the Minister on the modernisation of our airspace, which is a vital part of upgrading the analogue infrastructure to the digital age for our aviation industries. That will give them a much needed boost of confidence, so that we can keep our world-class sector here in the United Kingdom.

09:38

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under chairmanship, Mr Davies.

I welcome what I would effectively call a compromise. At the very start of the pandemic, it would have been absolute madness to expect airlines to fly for 80% of the time or to lose their slots. That would have meant bankruptcy for the airlines, and it would have been bad for the environment. It was therefore right that we took that figure to zero, but to reopen the market it is absolutely vital that we now provide a nudge, and the Government can provide it, to ensure that if airlines do not use their slots for a proportion of time, they will lose them. We need to see new entrants come into the market and airlines given every incentive to fly.

I welcome the regulations, and I have two questions on the detail. First, to use an example of an airport near me, Gatwick, Virgin previously announced that it is moving all of its operations over to Heathrow—permanently, in its view. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is right there is an opportunity for sub-letting to go on, and hopefully airlines will then return back to their airport, unless, as he said, airlines have previously specified that they will be permanently moving operations or ceasing operations. Does that mean that applies to a notice given previously, as indeed Virgin has given to Gatwick, or will there be a more formal period in which airlines may review their decision or lose their slots?

Secondly, I note that the Civil Aviation Authority has just announced the details of a consultation regarding the increase in charges that Heathrow can apply to airlines. That will cause controversy. It is a huge shame that we are starting to see a bit of a squabble between the airlines and the airports about the recovery of revenue. The market has been united in trying to reopen and it is great shame that the seeds of divide and rule have appeared. Has the Minister taken into account the implications of the regulations, under which the Government are trying to encourage more flying, in the light of the announced consultation? What impact will slot reallocation have on allowing airlines to fly and on allowing airports to retain revenue? Heathrow may then not need to increase charges, which as we all know will get passed on to the passenger, as much as proposed.

09:41

[Graham Stringer]

It is a pleasure to be here this early on Tuesday morning to talk about airport slot allocation. I would like to use the opportunity to ask the Minister a number of questions.

I have no quarrel with the principle behind the regulations. It is sensible to take account of the fact that the world has been different over the past 18 months because of covid, and we do not want to damage or ruin an industry that provides so many jobs. In that sense it is a pity that there is no regulatory impact assessment accompanying the regulations, because important issues lie behind them. Even after the Minister was inspired to reply to my earlier intervention, I did not understand his response. I should say that I made a mistake in referring to the change in sub-paragraph (4)(b) and that the scheduling period runs until March 2023, which is considerably more than 12 months. I believe that on its own that means that a regulatory impact assessment was required. Other issues in themselves, however, require an answer.

Airlines want to monopolise slots not only because that means they can carry out their business but because of their value. There is a grey market in the trading of airport slots. A regulatory impact assessment may have been able to provide an answer as to who own those slots. Do the airlines own them? They assume that they do. What is the assumption? Clearly, airports lay down the tarmac for the runways and they have an interest in that, but it is not clear from the notes provided that the airports were consulted. If they were not consulted, why not? What will be the impact of the proposed regulations on the grey market in trading air slots? It is an obscure but very important issue. Some years ago, when I served with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle on the Transport Committee, the slots were changing hands for at least £20 million a time. Given that the period in question will be extended for more than 12 months, those commercial interests should have been accounted for. What will be the impact of the proposed changes?

There is nothing in the notes that justifies the reduction from 80% to 50% in respect of retaining rights. It may well be a sensible measure. As far as I can tell from the notes, it is based on a reduction in flights that has occurred over time, but there has been a huge change within the last couple of weeks to where we can fly to, and where people can fly into this country from. It is likely that people will be able to fly into this country from the United States in two or three weeks. What will that do to the percentages that are proposed in these changed regulations? In a normal competitive environment, one would want them to be as high as possible, to stop the misuse of what are effectively anti-competitive grandfather rights. What account has been taken of the greater freedoms that we all now have to fly to and from this country?

Although I do not think that there is anything wrong in principle with what the Government and the Minister are suggesting, the detail is quite simply unjustified. It is unjustified because there is no regulatory impact assessment. These are important matters that relate to the commercial operation of airlines in this country, and of airports. I would be grateful if the Minister could reply to the questions and to the general points that I have made.

09:46

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

First, I have a declaration of interest: I had a fledgling interest in an airline start-up that came to an end after 9/11 in 2001, and did not get any further.

Covid has hit this country’s aviation industry probably worse than any other. The figures across Europe put the UK’s reduction in air travel as far worse than that of any other country, and the recovery has been far slower. This is not the forum to discuss the fact that we have had some rather odd and illogical covid measures that have not applied in other countries, but which have caused the sluggish reflation of that industry.

We do not have a perfect industry or a perfect market operating with airlines and airports, because we have limited airport space. That has always been a limiting factor, so it is not the fair, complete and normal market we might expect—but thank heavens that we do have a more liberated market than in the 1970s. We could have had a candied industry in aspic following the flag carriers of various countries, and we would not have seen the rise of a multitude of low-cost carriers that has liberated all of us and enabled lower prices and a great deal more choice.

On the 50% measure that is being applied, will the Minister’s Deparment commit to looking at the load factors? They are published widely; the CAA publish these figures, and I am sure that they are at the fingertips of the Minister and his Department. Will they look at the load factors of those airlines that are using the 50% reduction in the required use of their slots to see whether they are using it for other commercial advantage, such as by getting their flights filled up to 99% or 100%, rather than to more typical pre-pandemic levels of, say, 85% or 90%, which would have been more typical? Will the Minister be looking at what these airlines are actually carrying and giving the nudge by saying, “Come on, your load factors are higher than previously; it’s time you started using these slots whose usage this legislation is allowing you to reduce.” I am fully in favour of free markets, but the flexibility and value of these slots is really quite exceptional. If airlines are not prepared to use them, they should be losing them in the longer term, so that new entrants can come in and we can all enjoy new airlines such as Wizz Air, Ryanair or EasyJet, which are a new and beneficial feature of low-cost travel for all of us.

09:50

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies?

I would like to ask the Minister a series of questions, although I will allow him time to collect his thoughts. The point that the hon. Member for South Thanet makes is very real: there is no free market when the allocation of slots is effectively determined by the perpetuation of existing control. That is a really important point, because it distorts what a free market can offer, including in respect of new entrants. Conversely, however, the Minister made the point that Northern Ireland is outside the remit of the statutory instrument. Pre-covid, there was a fledgling service from Manchester, for example, to the airport in Derry. The flight to Belfast City has been taken off. I have some interest, because I have used those flights in the past. The point I want raise is that, as we have seen the collapse of some individual airlines or routes, those slots will be reallocated. How does the Minister see the process of reallocation taking place? The hon. Member for South Thanet is absolutely right that we have to create the capacity for innovators to come in. It is not the large carriers that look for those new routes; they want to stick with their traditional routes as they know how to make money on those. They leave it to the marginal airlines to look for the new slots. How that will be done is therefore an important issue.

Looking again at the Manchester picture, at one time we had flights from Manchester to Heathrow, Gatwick and London City. Of those, only the Heathrow service now exists. People might say, “Yes, you can travel from Manchester to London,” but if people want to travel onward and use global services, which are served by Gatwick in particular, it is necessary to make alternative arrangements. That is not good in terms of the national interest, and it makes the question of slots really important.

I want to ask the Minister whether he can look slightly beyond the remit of this present SI, which does have an end date, at what the picture will look like and at how we will make sure that the challenge comes into the existing big operators in a way that begins to make sure that we move towards a national strategic market-based solution to national needs.

Finally, we know that at the moment flight is one of the major contributors to climate change. Obviously slot allocation can be part of a process of trying to ensure that we move towards more efficient aircraft. What thought has the Minister and his colleagues put into the question of how slot allocation can be part of helping the industry move towards the lower-offending aircraft that we need to see in our skies?

09:53

[Robert Courts]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the points that hon. Members have made, and I will do my best to go through all of them.

The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East asked about the hire and refire tactics, and what attitude we would take on slots. As he knows, slot allocation is something that the Government are legally prevented from interfering with or getting involved in; it is a matter for Airport Coordination Limited. I understand the point that he raises, but that is the reason why we cannot do that.

The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the plan for reactivating and re-energising the sector more broadly. He will of course remember that we are due to publish a strategic plan for the recovery of the sector by the end of the year, and I will look to deal with those points in that document. We will be producing that important document in due course. It will also deal with a number of points made by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet asked about load factors and new entrants. That is an important point and something we should address with a bit of time to breathe and think. What we are dealing with here is essentially an emergency short-term measure. It is not intended to be long-term policy on slots; it is simply providing some alleviation at the current time. He raises important points; we will be considering the matter, and will look to say more about it in the document in due course.

The hon. Member for Rochdale asked a similar question but with regards to the environment. He is familiar with the work of the Jet Zero Council, which has a big part to play. He asked specifically about the environmental impact and slot allocation. We will look at the wider slot policy point in the strategic document on the recovery of the sector and say more about that towards the end of the year. I am not seeking to swerve the question, and the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, but the regulations are not the right vehicle to consider it, because they are an emergency measure to provide alleviation over the course of the winter season.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle asked about some of the longer-term implications, and they will be covered in the strategic document. He started by saying that the regulations are essentially a compromise, and he is right. It is a matter of judgment, and to a certain extent that also answers some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton. In terms of the financial impact, both hon. Gentlemen will appreciate that that involves an element of judgment. Clearly, the aviation sector has been unable to fly and that has a financial impact. There is a desire for airlines to start to fly their slots again, but without doing so in such a draconian way that it causes them to retrench. That is the challenge.

The Committee will recall that the last time that we debated this issue, it was a matter of full alleviation, so the 80:20 rule did not apply, but now 50% of the time flights are required. There is a judgment and an element of compromise and my hon. Friend for Bexhill and Battle is right to put it in those terms. He also asked about sub-letting, as he put it, and I think he means a full series hand-back, and the ability to come back and to fly some of those slots. If an airline knows that it cannot fly its slots, the intention is to encourage it to hand those slots back rather than to hold on to them and perhaps end up flying them, with all the environmental impact, and the economic impact on that airline. Because we are dealing with an evolving time, airlines may realise that they can fly slots, and that would encourage them to come back to airports where they are already established and start to re-establish services. It may also give an opportunity to new entrants if they are able to fly slots to demonstrate that they are able to do so. It is important to recognise that that would happen over the course of this season, and would not establish a long, historical right to fly slots. The point of the regulations is that airlines will retain their slots for the next season provided that they hand them back in this season.

A wider slot policy issue must be considered, which is why I referred to the strategic document that we will produce and release towards the end of the year. I am keen to stress that we need to look at the policy, but do so with a little bit more time to reflect, and not while the industry is in the midst of the immediate covid challenge.

[Huw Merriman]

I am keen for the Minister to say whether prior notification that an airline is moving away from an airport is indeed the notification that he has cited. Has that airline given the confirmation that it plans no longer to operate from that airport, or will there be a forward, formal date at which to vacate?

[Robert Courts]

I was just about to address that point. I did not mean to give the impression that I was not going to answer. It fundamentally comes down to whether ACL understands that to be a formal revocation. I would have to look at the circumstances to give a proper answer as to exactly what was said. It fundamentally comes down to whether operations have ceased or have been paused.

My hon. Friend also asked about the economic regulation of Heathrow. That is subject to an independent decision taken by the CAA. Obviously, there has been a huge amount of financial challenge over the course of the past 18 months, and that is why a support package, as part of wider economic measures, has been given. When making that independent assessment, the CAA must balance the interests of passengers and the airlines, and the financial viability of the airport. It balances those three factors when it reaches its independent decision.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton asked about the impact assessment, and I apologise for not giving an answer that was quite clear the first time. If I understood him correctly, the November point—he referred to March ’23, which I will address in a second—is about the powers that are conferred by ATMUA, or the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, that enable us to introduce this regulation. Although that period is clearly longer than a year, we are dealing here with a shorter period of alleviation. The powers last longer than a year, but the exercise of the powers that we are seeking here is for less than a year. The hon. Gentleman has the draft statutory instrument in front of him. He will see that paragraph 2 refers to a required percentage of

“50 %, in the case of slots with a date falling within the scheduling period from 31 October 2021 until 26 March 2022”.

The start of the period is the date of the end of the month, which I gave in my opening speech, and it will last until 26 March 2022. The powers that we are seeking to exercise apply for this shorter period of less than a year, from the end of October to the end of March.

The hon. Gentleman asked why we did not have an impact assessment for a longer period. That is a perfectly fair and reasonable point, but the difficulty, and the reason why we have not done such an assessment, is that it would depend on the usage ratio that we applied. He will remember that last time we considered this statutory instrument, there was a full alleviation, so there was no requirement to fly the flights at all. That would clearly have one economic impact, whereas we are now talking about a 50% usage rule, which will have a different economic impact. In the next season, there will be another period. I do not know now—we would have to consult—what we would do at that time; clearly that would have another economic impact. We are dealing with a period of less than a year.

The hon. Gentleman also made a point about the end of March 2023. If I understood him correctly, he took that from paragraph 2(4)(b), which is about the entitlement for the air carrier to retain the slots in the next scheduling period. He will remember that the issue we are dealing with here concerns this scheduling period. In normal circumstances, if slots are not flown 80% of the time, they cannot be kept in the next scheduling period. We are operating relief for this scheduling period. New paragraph 2a to the Council regulation states that

“the scheduling period from 31 October 2021 until 26 March 2022 shall entitle the air carrier to the same series of slots for the scheduling period from 30 October 2022 until 25 March 2023”.

If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, I think I can answer him by saying that this is not power we are exercising; we are simply pointing out that the airline will get to keep the slot for that scheduling period. I hope that I have explained the detail of the matter, now that I have found the relevant bit of the SI, and that I have understood his point correctly.

The hon. Gentleman asked about a number of other points. He asked about ownership of slots. Slots are a permission to fly, rather than an ownership, and are dealt with by ACL. I understand the substantial point that he makes, which is important, and we will have to look at slots policy, as I have explained, but the slots are a matter that is dealt with by ACL as a process independent of government.

I think I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman’s detailed point. The broader point he made is about assessment of the impact. Clearly there has not been a formal impact assessment, as we have discussed. There is obviously an informal one, but what we are doing here is seeking to allow relief, because if an airline cannot fly, it is quite clearly suffering an economic impact. That is what we are seeking to do. If an airline were not to have this relief, it would be required to fly the flight to keep the slot, and would wasting fuel without a full load factor, and in some cases even empty. Clearly that would have adverse economic impact for the airline, as well as an environmental impact, which I appreciate is separate from the point that he raises.

I think I have dealt with all hon. Members’ points. I am pausing for a second in case anyone thinks I have not. I am grateful for the points that have been made. The regulations are a short-term relief package. If we do not take this action, the default position will accrue and airlines will have to fly 80% of the time or lose the slots. That will mean that an airline either has to lose its slots or fly them empty, with all the adverse financial and environmental consequences that that would have, which I submit to the Committee would be a result that we would all want to avoid. We will, of course, look at the longer-term piece for the aviation industry in more detail at the end of year.

I hope I have covered all the points raised and I urge the Committee to support the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Airport Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2021.

10:04

Committee rose.

Ministerial Corrections

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Ministerial Corrections

Tuesday 19 October 2021

Cabinet Office

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Ministerial Corrections

Office for Veterans' Affairs

The following is an extract from Cabinet Office oral questions on 23 September 2021.

[Claire Coutinho]

Recent events in Afghanistan are yet another reminder of veterans’ dedication and sacrifice, and I think the whole House will recognise the support that they need after serving their country. Will the Minister set out the steps he is taking to help veterans, particularly those who suffer from substance and alcohol misuse?

[Leo Docherty]

I agree entirely, and we must put on record our thanks to all those involved in the two decades of operational activity in Afghanistan. I thank my hon. Friend for the support she is giving to veterans in her constituency. We are putting an additional £5 million into armed forces charities, bringing that support to more than £25 million this year, and an additional £2.7 million into Operation Courage, bringing that total support to £20 million this year.

[Official Report, 23 September 2021, Vol. 701, c. 398.]

Letter of correction from the Minister for Defence People and Veterans:

An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho).

The correct response should have been:

[Leo Docherty]

I agree entirely, and we must put on record our thanks to all those involved in the two decades of operational activity in Afghanistan. I thank my hon. Friend for the support she is giving to veterans in her constituency. We are putting an additional £5 million into armed forces charities, bringing that support to more than £25 million this year, and an additional £2.7 million for Operation Courage over the next three years.

Education

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Ministerial Corrections

Coronavirus: Education Setting Attendance and Support for Pupils

The following are extracts from the urgent question on 23 September 2021.

[Alex Burghart]

The challenges that we currently face are obviously substantial, but great improvements have been made. At the end of the previous term, attendance in school was at 75%; as of Thursday last week, attendance was at 91.9%, with 99.9% of all schools open…The hon. Lady asked about face masks; at some stages in the pandemic we have had face masks in corridors, strict social distancing and bubbles, but the evidence now says that we can move away from that.

[Official Report, 23 September 2021, Vol. 701, c. 427.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart):

Errors have been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).

The correct information should have been:

[Alex Burghart]

The challenges that we currently face are obviously substantial, but great improvements have been made. At the end of the previous term, attendance in school was at 76.7%; as of Thursday last week, attendance was at 91.9%, with 99.9% of all schools open…The hon. Lady asked about face masks; at some stages in the pandemic we have had face coverings in corridors, social distancing and bubbles, but the evidence now says that we can move away from that.

[Dr Spencer]

It is great to see my hon. Friend in his place at the Dispatch Box. I welcome the work this Government have done to make it a priority to keep schools open for face-to-face learning. In contrast, Labour equivocated over whether they were even safe to reopen. Does he agree that if Labour were in power, our schools would probably be closed for face-to-face learning and our children left behind?.

[Alex Burghart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful question. We have been very clear throughout that we wanted to get schools open as soon as it was safe to do so. We have done that. We have managed to increase attendance from 75% at the end of last term to 91.1% at the start of this term.

[Official Report, 23 September 2021, Vol. 701, c. 431.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart):

An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer).

The correct information should have been:

[Alex Burghart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful question. We have been very clear throughout that we wanted to get schools open as soon as it was safe to do so. We have done that. We have managed to increase attendance from 76.7% at the end of last term to 91.1% at the start of this term.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Hull is one of the most disadvantaged parts of the country, and there will be no levelling up without catching up. Will the Minister commit to the necessary catching-up budget proposed by his adviser, Sir Kevan Collins?

[Alex Burghart]

As I have said a number of times, we have put in £3 billion, with £1.5 billion on tutoring for 6 million tutoring programmes—100 million hours of tutoring—and an additional 2 million tutoring programmes in 16 to 19 education.

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart):

An error has been identified in my response to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).

The correct response should have been:

[Alex Burghart]

As I have said a number of times, we have put in £3 billion, with £1.5 billion on tutoring for 6 million tutoring courses—100 million hours of tutoring—and an additional 2 million tutoring courses in 16 to 19 education.

Health and Care Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Mr Peter Bone, Julie Elliott, Steve McCabe, Mrs Sheryll Murray

† Argar, Edward (Minister for Health)

† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)

† Davies, Gareth (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)

† Davies, Dr James (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)

† Double, Steve (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)

† Foy, Mary Kelly (City of Durham) (Lab)

† Gideon, Jo (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)

† Higginbotham, Antony (Burnley) (Con)

† Madders, Justin (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)

† Norris, Alex (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)

† Owen, Sarah (Luton North) (Lab)

† Robinson, Mary (Cheadle) (Con)

† Skidmore, Chris (Kingswood) (Con)

† Smyth, Karin (Bristol South) (Lab)

† Timpson, Edward (Eddisbury) (Con)

† Whitford, Dr Philippa (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)

Williams, Hywel (Arfon) (PC)

Huw Yardley, Sarah Ioannou, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 19 October 2021

(Morning)

[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]

Health and Care Bill

09:29

[The Chair]

Before we start, I have a few notices. Welcome to Committee Room 14. Please stand to catch my eye because this is such a long room, although if you are doing anything naughty at the back I will see it. I should say that today is my birthday, but wishing me a happy birthday will get you no advantages. Electronic devices should be put on silent mode. No food or drinks, except water, are permitted during the sitting.

The House encourages Members to wear masks when they are not speaking and to give one another space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Thankfully, in this Committee Room that is easy to do. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to [e-mail].

Clause 79

Information Standards

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

I beg to move amendment 117, in clause 79, page 69, line 15, leave out “services” and insert “care”.

This amendment has the effect that information standards may be set for public bodies that exercise functions in connection with the provision of any health care in England, and not simply NHS services.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 118 to 121.

Clause stand part.

[Edward Argar]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. As a member of the Government, I am well aware that seeking to curry favour with you in the Chair is a futile task, but none the less I wish you a happy birthday.

The amendments ensure that the drafting of the clauses covers all healthcare, whether delivered by public bodies or by the independent sector on behalf of the NHS or not, and that the relevant persons are captured by the requirement to comply with information standards. Those are matters of technical detail, and ensure that the changes made by clause 79 are coherent and consistent.

Amendment 117 makes minor changes so that information standards can apply to public bodies that exercise functions in connection with the provision of healthcare in England. It ensures that information standards can be applied to public bodies, even if the healthcare is not provided as part of the NHS. Similarly, amendment 118 ensures that information standards can apply in the processing of non-NHS and NHS healthcare information.

Amendments 119, 120 and 121 make consequential changes as a result of the previous amendments. Without those changes, there could be uncertainty about whether information standards can be applied to healthcare information generated outside the NHS. Without the amendments, we might not be able to ensure that data relating to NHS services—such as data about services provided in private patient units or by independent sector providers—flows through the system in a standardised way so that it is always meaningful and easy to understand for any recipient or user.

Clause 79 amends the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It allows the publication of mandatory information standards relating to the processing of information, including its transfer, collection and storage. Health and adult social care providers must currently have regard to information standards, but the clause would require providers to comply with them. The clause allows for the application of mandatory information standards to private providers as well. It requires regulations to be made about procedures for creating information standards. The clause also includes a power to require information from providers for the purpose of monitoring compliance with information standards.

The measures will help ensure that information flows through the system in a standardised way so that it is easily accessible and useful, and they will help to ensure the security of that information when it is processed. Given that publicly funded providers are already required to have regard to information standards, the clause will cause minimal disruption to compliant providers but will enhance the Department’s ability, on behalf of the public, to deal effectively with cases of non-compliance.

By applying information standards to private providers, the clause aims to improve the experience of patients who move between publicly and privately funded services by their own choice, such as individuals who choose elective surgery by a private provider. It does that by enabling the setting of standards that encourage the frictionless movement of information between those providers, with the aim of supporting timely and appropriate patient care decisions.

We consider the clause a crucial enabler for the creation in its broadest sense of a modern heath and care service whose systems are integrated and responsive to the needs of patients and users. I commend it to the Committee.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to resume proceedings on the Bill with you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I would extend birthday greetings to you, but I know that Tom Brady and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are already giving you all the joy that you need at this time of the year.

[The Chair]

That has more influence.

[Alex Norris]

I thought that might get more traction with you.

I also take the opportunity on behalf of Opposition Members to pass our sincere condolences to Government Members and to pay tribute to our friend Sir David Amess. He was a wonderful man: funny, kind and caring. I say that now because my final conversation with him was about the Bill, which precluded me from joining him on a trip. He commended me on my diligence but also cautioned me not to work too hard. I will always remember that; it was classic David.

As the Minister said, we have reached the data part of the Bill. It is important for everything we talked about in part 1, because all the new cultures that we seek to foster will fall over if the data does not work and, as he said, flow freely back and forth between organisations. At the end of the day, ensuring that data can port between different organisations is our problem to solve, not that of the patient or the individual. Therefore, if we are to have properly joined-up care, it is vital that those who provide care have a full sense of who they are caring for and what is needed.

I will not cover the Opposition’s really good amendment to the next clause, which would improve it further, until we get to it. In that spirit, we do not intend to divide the Committee on this group of amendments or on the clause more generally, but I have a couple of points to address, which I hope the Minister might come to in his summing up.

On the clause in general, the Opposition support putting the entire health and care system on the same footing for information standards. As we heard in oral evidence, one of the major blockers is the myriad data systems used across the health and care landscape, many of which cannot talk to each other. When I was an adult services portfolio holder in my local council, I saw how hard it was sometimes even for council systems to talk to each other—I do not know whether that was remarkable or inevitable—never mind systems across different organisations and, in this case, the public, private, and community and voluntary sectors. That is a real challenge. I do not think we can remove that completely—systems may look different because of their different purposes—but there must be some attempt to standardise.

The Opposition do not oppose the clause, but proposed new section 6B in subsection 2(c) allows organisations to opt out—we might want organisations to be able to do that in some circumstances—and proposed new section 6C provides that regulations will cover when that is allowable. However, it is hard to know whether the clause will work until we have seen whether the regulations are strong enough and set a high enough bar on opting out. Will the Minister confirm that the measure allowing for opting out will be very much exceptional and that we will not see any nonsense about commercial confidentiality? We want data to flow across sectors, and that confidentiality has traditionally been one of the barriers to that.

Let me turn to Government amendments 117 and 118, which will expand the scope of the organisations covered. That is good. If we are to share data between social care and more traditional healthcare services, that includes a big landscape of non-NHS providers and perhaps even non-local authority providers, and it is right that information standards should be aligned. There must be a common basis on which to build. The Minister said that in general most organisations are probably already in that space and paying the due regard that they need to, but I fear that these things will be easier in concept than in execution. I am keen to learn what assessment the Minister and his officials have made of how ready the disparate providers in this landscape are to meet these new requirements, whether he thinks there will be a transition period, and whether providers will be helped to do this. Otherwise, the implementation of this strong concept in the Bill will not work. I hope the Minister can address that.

[Edward Argar]

May I put on record my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about our late colleague? I suspect that the Health team and the shadow Health team will also speak of him in oral questions in the Chamber in a little while. The hon. Gentleman’s anecdote was all too typical of Sir David and his approach to these things. I think the last time I spoke to Sir David was at our party conference; I had to do something on the platform, and he seemed mildly bemused by the fact that I was rushing off to have my make-up done before I went before the cameras. He then insisted on posing for a photograph with me. It was typical of him. We all miss him terribly in this place, as of course, most importantly, will his wife.

I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support, in broad terms, for clause 79 and the Government amendments. He is absolutely right about the importance of data flowing freely and safely for the benefit of patients. That is why the clause strengthens the wording of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, so that it says “must…have regard to” and “must…comply with”.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. First, he talked about the option of opting out from regulations. I can offer him reassurance on that; yes, I hope that its use would be exceptional, rather than the rule. Our assessment is that there is already widespread compliance with what we are seeking to do here, but as he rightly says, we have to make sure that we have as robust a framework as possible, because it is up to us to make this work for the patient, rather than their having to work their way around a challenging framework.

The hon. Gentleman’s final point was about the burden of execution. He is absolutely right; as we all know in this place, and from our previous careers in local government—we talk about this a lot—something can look immaculately thought-through and put together on paper, but when we hit the reality of practical implementation, there can be significant challenges. It is not our assessment that there will be significant burdens or challenges with implementation; I go back to my point that our understanding is that the vast majority of these requirements are already adhered to. However, I am happy to keep the matter under review, and to make sure that we tweak the implementation if we need to, and are sensitive to the reality on the ground.

Let me put a bit more flesh on the bones on the subject of the waiver—the opt-out, as it were—as we may touch on the subject when we come to the hon. Gentleman’s later amendments and in subsequent clauses. The thinking behind the waiver is that there may be circumstances in which an organisation feels that it genuinely cannot meet a published information standard that applies to it. That is why there is the waiver power. It could apply to use it, but that request would have to be considered very carefully by officials before it was granted.

I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance, but he knows, I hope, that I seek to be pragmatic in much of what I do, and in the implementation of the provisions, I will seek to apply a degree of common-sense pragmatism.

Amendment 117 agreed to.

Amendments made: 118, in clause 79, page 69, line 21, at end insert—

“(aa) in subsection (3), for ‘services’ substitute ‘care’;”.

This amendment makes it clear that the Secretary of State’s power to set information standards extends to information concerning health care other than NHS care.

Amendment 119, in clause 79, page 70, line 2, at end insert—

“(d) in subsection (7)—

(i) at the appropriate place insert—

‘health care’ includes all forms of health care whether relating to physical or mental health and also includes procedures that are similar to forms of medical or surgical care but are not provided in connection with a medical condition;”;

(ii) omit the definition of ‘health services’.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 117 and 118.

Amendment 120, in clause 79, page 70, line 29, at end insert—

“(3A) In section 251C (continuity of information: interpretation)—

(a) after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) “Health services” means services which must or may be provided as part of the health service in England; and for that purpose “the health service” has the same meaning as in the National Health Service Act 2006 (see section 275(1) of that Act).’;

(b) for subsection (7) substitute—

‘(7) Adult social care’ and ‘public body’ have the same meaning as in section 250; and ‘processes’ and ‘processed’ are to be read in accordance with the meaning of ‘processing’ in that section.” —(Edward Argar.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 119.

Clause 79, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80

Sharing anonymous health and social care information

[Alex Norris]

I beg to move amendment 109, in clause 80, page 71, line 15, at end insert—

“(4A) Before the power in subsection (1) may be exercised, and every five years thereafter, the Secretary of State must review, and lay before Parliament a report of that review, the possibility of combining the exercise of that power with the exercise of the powers under which—

(a) the General Practice Data for Planning and Research programme, and

(b) other data-sharing programmes

are run.”

I am moving this amendment in my name and those of my colleagues. There has been some disappointment that on part 1 of the Bill we have not been able to move the Government particularly far from what was originally presented in the Bill. As has been said a number of times, this Bill ought to drive integration in health and care services, but instead we really have a reorganisation Bill, with a promise from the Prime Minister to return with an integration White Paper in due course—when presumably some configuration of all of us will come back and do all this again. It is hard to think that we have not left some opportunities on the table, so I hope we can do better on parts 2 to 5 of the Bill, and I do not think there is a better place to start on that than amendment 109, which would significantly help the Government with an issue that they have been struggling with for more than a decade.

It is obligatory for Health Ministers and shadow Health Ministers to start by saying that data saves lives, and it does. It tells us what is happening in our communities and our country and how we may need to change services to meet the needs of populations. But if it is done right, it can also tell us what will happen in the future and what future needs we will have to meet. For the purposes of designing health and care services, that is golden information. It gives us the chance to get ahead of the curve, to make good early investments and to avoid dreadful workforce gaps, which we are seeing at the moment and which have been created over the last decade.

We are fortunate that there is no country in the world better set up for high-class use of data than ourselves. We have a single health system in each of the four nations covering our entire populations. Of course, our data is spread over more places than simply NHS databases. If we can get it organised, we ought to have the most rich understanding of our population’s health and of the outlook for the future. What an extraordinary gift that is, but we are not using it effectively enough at the moment and we can do much better.

I remember, early in my stint as shadow Public Health Minister, meeting a group of dentists, one of whom said to me that they can not infrequently recognise the signs of certain eating disorders by the impact that frequent vomiting has on the back of a person’s—in these cases, generally a young person’s—teeth. They found it hard to understand why they had no idea whether anyone else who provided care for that individual, or perhaps even the individual themselves, knew that that had happened, because they had absolutely no broader healthcare information about the person. Of course, there are important circumstances in which we need to create firewalls to protect privacy, and we would want people to have only the information that they needed to do their job properly, but in this case the clinician felt like they were flying blind and unable to provide the very best care for this person as a whole person rather than caring just for the teeth of the person.

As an Opposition, we want to see data used well, wisely and in an integrated manner, and if there has really been only token integration in part 1 of the Bill, why not see the real thing in part 2? As I have said, the history here for the Government is chequered. Only this summer, through the General Practice Data for Planning and Research programme, the Government sought, with a characteristic, I might say, lack of touch, to grab all the data from England’s GPs without explaining to patients why they wanted it, what they would do with it, who would use it and who would not use it. Again, it feels as if it is more than a three-word slogan: not enough time was taken to explain this, and the result was entirely predictable.

According to a survey done by Which?, 55% of people had heard of the scheme and, of those who had, 71% felt that the NHS had not publicised the scheme well. Of those unaware of the scheme, nearly 40% stated that they would now be likely to opt out of it. Fifty per cent. of the respondents who were aware of the plans said that they had heard about them through news or social media rather than official sources. Forty-two per cent. said that hearing about the scheme made them trust the NHS less—that was a particularly startling finding. And nearly one third of those who knew of the scheme and had opted out of it had found the opt-out process overly complicated. What a mess. In the end, we saw 1.4 million people opt out, despite how hard it had been made to do so, and the plans were soon punted into the long grass, to return at a date not specified.

This is a real hammer blow for the confidence in how the state and the country handle data. These were the headlines on 13 and 14 October alone. The Bracknell News had, “Thousands of people in Bracknell Forest have opted out of sharing their medical records”. The Somerset County Gazette had, “MORE than 10,000 people in Somerset West and Taunton have opted out of sharing their medical records”. The Lancashire Evening Post had, “Thousands in Preston block bid to share medical records”. The Wirral Globe had, “Tens of thousands of people in Wirral have opted out of sharing their medical records”. The Bolton News had, “Nearly 20,000 Bolton patients opt out of sharing their medical records for research.” There were similar headlines in the Shields Gazette, Hemel Hempstead Gazette, the Hartlepool Mail and more. If it were not so serious, it would be funny.

09:45

Each of those headlines is another setback for confidence in individuals’ data and its handling by the state. They go into people’s inboxes or browsers across all those communities and undermine the case for the better use of data. This episode should be looked on with real sadness and frustration. After significant opposition from Labour Members, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, patients and campaigners, the process is now in mothballs, perhaps never to be seen again.

I talked to a journalist after the pause was announced, and they said to me, “Alex, that was a big win for you guys, eh?” I think they were surprised when I said that, at best, it was a pyrrhic victory, but in reality it was a loss for everybody because we will not now be in a position to use our data to its maximum effect. Even worse, the Government had tried the exact same thing eight years previously and failed in precisely the same way. As I say, they have had other failures to launch over the last decade. This is not a three-word slogan. It is just too complicated to be executed properly.

These things do not have to be made as hard as they look. I strongly believe that people will support the use of data to improve our health, but they want to know that it will not be flogged off to a political donor for goodness’ knows what purpose, and that it will not be given to a company for nothing to help it develop treatments that then get sold back to us at a significant premium. I do not think the tests proposed are too much to ask. There is so much suspicion these days about the use of data. Conspiracy theories abound, and the loss of confidence will set us back for a significant period. That is why I find it so hard to understand why we are not taking the opportunity in part 2 to rectify the mistakes over the summer and the previous decade, but amendment 109 seeks to help.

The Committee took evidence about this matter from NHSX at the beginning of our second sitting, which already seems a long time ago, and Simon Madden, the director of data policy, stated:

“Above all else, I think that the overriding need for trust and transparency—to build public trust in the use of health data—is vitally important”.

That is bang on the nose. I did not hear the Minister say that in his opening speech, so I hope we will when he responds. There needs to be an understanding that the failure to handle GPDPR properly has really set us back.

What I could not understand, though, was the witness’s next answer, when I asked about the process enabled by part 2 of the Bill and the future resumption of GPDPR, or presumably a successor programme, and whether they would run together. I felt the two answers were contradictory. The witness stated:

“Essentially, they are separate in terms of process”.

He then said:

“The general public will not make a distinction between any things to do with their health data.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 37, Q46-7]

I would argue strongly that it is the second statement that is correct. Anything to do with data in part 2 of the Bill or a resumption of GPDPR, or a successor to GPDPR, will be considered the same thing by the public. It will be regarded with suspicion because of the mistakes that have been made. Amendment 109 seeks to pull the processes together into one place because, as the witness said, the public will think of them as one thing, and we ought to treat them as one thing.

Clause 80 enables a health or social care body to extract relevant data from another such body. I have no problem with that in an integrated system, but it cannot be decoupled from future attempts to create a single health and care information database, as the Government sought to do over the summer. I hope the Minister will say that the process in part 2 of the Bill and other processes that may return in future are two parts of the same whole and as such will be treated that way, or we will make the same errors. I desperately hope that we will hear that today. As I have said, clause 80 is important. Amendment 109 makes it better. I hope to at least hear from the Minister a desire to bring all data programmes under one roof. In principle, we need organisations to talk to each other, and there is a requirement for that to happen.

During party conference, I escaped briefly to meet people at the Macmillan Horizon Centre in Brighton, which supports people and their families living with cancer. I met a man called Marc Valentine who is living with cancer. Due to delays with his care, his cancer is now terminal. He visits multiple hospitals and care settings for guidance and treatment but, in an example of massive system failure, his records do not follow him from meeting to meeting. Here we have a person with cancer who had sat down with a world-class cancer clinician who said she could not offer guidance because she simply did not know anything about his case. As a system, we have wasted the one thing that Marc does not have—time. We can do much better.

The clause will help by allowing organisations to demand such information of each other. That is probably second-best; it would be better for information to be readily shareable. That is why Labour are proposing this amendment. We have heard that the public will not differentiate between the different processes, and I cannot quite understand why the Government propose to make them.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

It is important that we recognise the different types of data. The clause is talking about anonymised data, from which we are looking at performance standards, outcome standards and the percentage of patients who had a certain treatment. It is not talking specifically about identifiable data. We also have fully identifiable data with patient details, and in between those we have what is called pseudonymised data, which is like a blurry picture. However, the public are also concerned about that data because they fear that when it is triangulated with other sources somebody can be identified.

It is important that clinical data—the basis of communication between a GP, a breast surgeon like me and an oncologist in a centre—moves around and can be used. However, we must recognise that, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North clarified with the survey that he quoted, the public are concerned about their data. Beyond someone’s biological self, the most important thing that relates to them is their personal data, and after the care.data scandal of seven years ago and Google DeepMind, the public do not trust programmes that suddenly appear with little discussion and consultation and that talk about taking data. There is a huge public education process to be carried out, but equally, in the end, confidence is undermined by the talk about sharing data, whether identifiable or pseudonymised, with commercial companies.

Anonymised data is not an issue. For example, of the patients who took a drug, 10% got a side effect and, of those, 3% had previous heart disease. That is useful information; it does not identify patients. The public’s concern is that commercial companies, including pharmaceutical companies, could access pseudonymised or full data that would identify them. It is important that the Government explain the three types of data and how they are used for utterly different things. The public have no issue with Public Health England or academics working to recognise what is happening with heart disease or cancer in the UK and learning from data. However, they are concerned about the potential commercial use and potential revelation of their personal data.

The Government have a long job to do to convince the public. The danger is that the baby goes out with the bathwater and we lose not just research but integrated functioning in NHS England. It is important to recognise that the data held in the devolved health services is completely separate. I will come to that on clause 85.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Unfortunately, Mr Bone, you missed our last sitting, in which I relayed to other Members my long career in the NHS and my experience on these matters, but I will start in the spirit in which I left off. Having worked at a clinical commissioning group at the time of the care.data episode, I absolutely concur with the comments made by the Labour and SNP Front Benchers, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire.

We have had a lost decade, which is a great shame because the use of such data—we have learned much more about data and science during the pandemic—can save lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North mentioned meeting a patient who could perhaps have been helped better. At the end of the day, that is what we want to make happen.

My experience inside the health service will not be everybody’s, but on information governance the attitude to data is very well developed and sophisticated, and people take it incredibly seriously. When we started on the care.data episode, the value of that really seemed self-evident in the system.

We need to bear in mind, as we look at the issue as legislators, that the people who deal with it day to day to effect what they see as positive change may be operating on one track and be completely taken by surprise by the public reaction. I remember trying to understand it myself; I am not a data specialist, but I tried to understand the different channels of what was being tried at the time. I explained to more senior managers that it did not sit right with me—I did not understand where it was going or what it meant for me. If I did not understand it, I knew that if it were not explained carefully, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire says, the general public would not either.

There is a missed opportunity. I ask the Minister to consider our very helpful Opposition amendment, not just in his role as a political leader in the Government, but by thinking about the rest of the system and how we can support it to do what it needs to. We absolutely need to bring the general public with us. Because of the mistakes of the past, I would argue that that we now require quite a mammoth exercise: not just differentiating between types of data, but considering who owns it, how we give it and what powers we will have in future.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said, the opt-out was really quite an incredible exercise over the summer. I think that has gone below the political radar in terms of the numbers of people who have taken that really quite difficult step. Part of this, as we will come to later, is about trust in GPs and GP data, which is where so much of our individual source data goes. The role of GPs also has to be brought very carefully along the path, because that data is of course very valuable for them.

The commercialisation concerns people, but beyond that, this is about our very essence—our trust in the system and the clinicians we see, who most of the time are our GPs. The Government need to step back—although not for too long, because they have already stepped back for a decade—and consider what is the best public exercise that they could embark on to resolve this problem, as the system and all of us really need.

Accepting our amendment in the spirit in which it was moved would be a step in the right direction. If the Government do not accept it, at the very least we should understand what they propose in its place.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham North for tabling amendment 109. I appreciate where he is coming from; as I understand it, his amendment is intended to ensure that the clause does not require health and care organisations to provide information that they could already be required to provide under existing powers. He talked about consistency and a single approach, and he is right.

The hon. Member for Bristol South is absolutely right, as is the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, about the need for us—the Government, the system and indeed all of us—to better explain and reassure people about the fact that data saves lives and about how it is used. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire was right to draw a distinction between pseudonymised and anonymised data. She was equally right to highlight that pseudonymised data is not relevant under the power, which is about anonymised data. In a sense, the reassurance is there, but it is incumbent on us to make it clear to people.

09:59

We have seen in individuals’ treatment and care pathways the value of data shared and the benefits that it can bring, but we have also seen that more broadly in the development of new drugs and treatments and the benefits that can come from science and research. It is a challenge on occasion to draw a neat line, because some commercial entities develop drugs and do the research. The hon. Member for Bristol South made a key point. She will correct me if I have misunderstood, but people’s concern is not about anonymised data being used to develop drugs that will save lives; it is about where there is a commercial impetus behind it and a commercial gain, and whether the data could be used in a particular way.

In terms of safeguards to prevent private companies from requesting data and using it for commercial purposes, the power to require the anonymous information applies only to public bodies. All NHS organisations will be expected to meet very high standards around the transparency and accountability set out in our five principles governing data-sharing arrangements entered into by NHS organisations, published in July 2019. Those include the principle that any use of NHS data not in the public domain must have an explicit aim to improve the health, welfare and care of patients in the NHS, or how it operates, and relevant bodies would have to continue to comply with those standards.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North made a point about different strands and paths being applied to different things. In June 2021, the then Secretary of State published “Data saves lives: reshaping health and social care with data”, which is the overarching strategic approach. In reality, a lot of what is in that does not require legislation. We do not want to over-legislate, but we are seeking to fill some gaps.

On the hon. Gentleman’s underlying points, the clause his amendment seeks to tweak is designed to enable individual health and adult social care public bodies to access anonymous data to support their functions. It is clearly intended to establish that sharing anonymous data to help staff do their jobs is a key duty and responsibility of all organisations that provide health and social care services in England. It applies only to information that does not relate to identified or identifiable individuals. The information can already be shared without the need for further safeguards around privacy and confidentiality. The Bill does not provide an alternative route for sharing personal or patient information that would be subject to safeguards and data protection legislation, or make any other provisions applying to data-sharing programmes, such as the General Practice Data for Planning and Research programme.

The June strategy that I referred to includes a commitment to reduce the data burden for health and care staff. That is why the clause does not expressly require organisations to process information to render it anonymous so as to comply with a request. We have also taken regulation-making powers to enable exceptions to the power to be made. Again, we come back to seeking to provide appropriate safeguards, but minimising the burden.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North touched on regulations. Key to our consideration of what exceptions should be included in the regulations will be minimising that burden. That could include providing that the power does not apply to information available through other means, and we do not intend to commence the clause until the underpinning regulations are also in place.

On the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I entirely understand where he is coming from, but I fear that it is not necessary for safeguarding patient information, given that the clause relates only to anonymised data and not to identified or identifiable individuals. I fear equally that it would not go with the grain of seeking to ensure that the burden of data sharing is minimised. In particular, it would appear—he may correct me on this—to require the Secretary of State to carry out a review before each request is made under the clause and to lay a report before Parliament.

I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment to a vote, although I suspect he will. I am happy to have further conversations with him about what he seeks to achieve. Hopefully, I can give him more reassurance or, if I cannot, explore whether there is more that we need to do in this space to reassure him, the Committee, the House and the broader public on the points about confidence made by the hon. Members for Bristol South and for Central Ayrshire. On that basis, I gently encourage him to consider not pressing his amendment to a Division, and I am happy to engage with him and the Committee if he feels that that would be constructive.

[The Chair]

Alex Norris, gently or otherwise.

[Alex Norris]

I thank colleagues for their contributions, which I thought were really good. This is an important area, and it is important that we give it a proper look. The points that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made about the different types of data were important, and the run-through of their benefits and disbenefits was well made. I know that we will get to them again when we debate future amendments, so I will not prejudge that conversation. I still feel strongly—this relates to what the Minister said—that we have reached a point in the public conversation where there is no differentiation left, and that is the point that Simon Madden made. Because the temperature of the discussion has been elevated, they will be seen as one. That is what I have sought to address in my amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South was right to say that we have had a lost decade. That is, sad because it means that there have been healthcare improvements that we have not made. Over that time, extraordinary workforce gaps have emerged, and we would perhaps have been able better to plan around them if we had had a greater sense of the growing healthcare needs in our population. She is right that getting public trust back will be a “mammoth exercise”. That is why we have advocated for getting everything under one roof, in a single process.

The Minister mentioned that we all have a responsibility to explain data, and that it is important to make the arguments that we make in here out in our communities. I agree, but I feel I have much less of a responsibility to do that when the process is snuck out over the summer at short notice, without our ever having had a conversation about it. There could have been some effort to build consensus. I would have been willing to have difficult conversations with colleagues and constituents about it on that basis, but the way the process was handled made it impossible to defend. It left right hon. and hon. Members in the very strange circumstance of helping people to opt out of a system while thinking that that was not a good decision for them, or for anybody. As local representatives, we have a responsibility to people who ask for help.

I still do not get the sense from what has been said since then, publicly or in these proceedings, that the Government really understand the public message that they have sent, and I fear that that means we will keep repeating this conversation. In the amendment I simply ask that before the powers in the clause are turned on, a statement is made about how we seek to use these processes, and any other data processes, and handle them as one piece. That feels like a very modest ask.

I am going back and forth on whether to press the amendment to a Division. The Minister’s offer was a kind one, and I am conscious that I am putting a lot of this at his door. He did not create this process, but he is here speaking to part 2, so it is at least half him. Perhaps, when the dust has settled from what happened over the summer, we can have a conversation soon between Government and Opposition Members about how to do such things differently in future.

[Edward Argar]

I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that either I or the relevant portfolio-holding Minister will happily have that conversation with him.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for that, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 121, in clause 80, page 71, line 20, leave out “250(7)” and insert “251C(6A)”—(Edward Argar.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 120.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Edward Argar]

As we alluded to in our discussion on amendment 109, the clause inserts a new section into the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It has the sole objective of increasing the sharing of anonymous data for the benefit of the health and adult social care sector. The provision applies only to information that is in a form that does not identify any individual or enable the identity of any individual to be ascertained. It allows health and social care public bodies to require such information from other health and social care public bodies and from others who are commissioned by public bodies to provide health and adult social care services. As we discussed in relation to amendment 109, the provision requires those bodies to share only information that they already hold in anonymous form; they are not required to process information held in order to render it anonymous.

The use of “anonymised” in the title of the inserted chapter is a typographical error to be corrected. It does not reflect a change in the policy intention, nor does it have any practical impact on the clause. Anonymous information—information that does not identify any individual or enable the identity of any individual to be ascertained—can already be shared without the need for safeguards to ensure privacy and confidentiality. The provision will mean that public bodies will be able to require such information to be provided to them for the benefit of the health and adult social care sector.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North made an important point about understanding the message from the public on data. He may have a different interpretation, but I think the message was, “Data saves lives, but it is our data. We want to know and approve of how our data is used and have control over it.” People recognise that data can improve care and treatment, but it is their data and they want to be reassured and comfortable about how it is used and the safeguards that are in place, and that it is their choice rather than something that is done to them.

The new power to require sharing of anonymous information will complement section 251B of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which places a duty on certain health or social care organisations to share information about an individual with certain persons where that will facilitate the provision of care to the individual and it is in the individual’s best interests. Both measures underline the importance of sharing data proportionately and appropriately to improve services and care.

The clause will also complement key provisions in the Bill, supporting those that strengthen the duty to co-operate across the health and care system. Regulations will provide for exceptions. Issues such as minimising the burden on providers and protecting commercially sensitive information may be taken into account when introducing exceptions. It is intended that proposed new section 251D(1), which allows for anonymous information to be required, will not be commenced until the regulations are made and the exceptions are clear. Given the extensive debate that we have had on amendment 109, I will stop there and commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 80, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81

General duties of the Health and Social Care Information Centre etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Edward Argar]

The clause amends the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and requires NHS Digital, when exercising its functions, to have regard to the need to promote the effective and efficient planning, development and provision of health services and of adult social care in England. NHS Digital must have regard to that alongside various other duties, and the clause requires it to have regard to the need to balance those duties.

In addition, subsection (3) makes clear that NHS Digital may share information for purposes connected with the provision of healthcare or adult social care, or the promotion of health. That is intended to address previous confusion about when NHS Digital can share data by clarifying that it can share data for purposes such as planning the delivery of services and medical research. This will ensure that NHS Digital has the right powers and duties to collect, share and otherwise process data proportionately, appropriately and with due regard to protecting privacy.

10:15

The clause will also ensure that consideration of the benefits to the health and care system and the individuals served by it sits at the centre of NHS Digital’s duties, alongside its other general duties. These include having regard to the need to promote the effective, efficient and economical use of resources, and to respect and promote the privacy of the recipients of health and adult social care, and a duty on NHS Digital to minimise the burden it imposes on others.

The clause acknowledges that NHS Digital’s key functions may sometimes pull it in different directions, and that where that happens, it must balance competing priorities and outcomes—something we expect all organisations to do every day, but it should be explicitly acknowledged in NHS Digital’s key functions.

We also want to provide greater clarity on the purposes for which NHS Digital can share data. It has a rich store of data, which, when used securely, safely and responsibly, can help ensure that everyone receives the best care and treatment—a point that the hon. Member for Nottingham North made in debate on the previous clause. The changes that we made to NHS Digital’s legislative framework in the 2012 Act are intended to ensure that it can do that. The clause will not enable data to be sold to private organisations; I offer him that reassurance, as I suspect as he would have asked me for it in a moment, and I hope it is welcome to him. He may none the less ask me to reiterate that in my concluding remarks.

NHS Digital will continue to be subject to data privacy laws in relation to its use of data; also, its legislative framework and processes place strict controls on its dissemination of data. Those controls include a requirement that any sharing of information be for legitimate purposes, such as those connected with the provision of health or adult social care, and scrutiny by NHS Digital’s independent group advising on the release of data, which advises NHS Digital on the appropriateness of sharing any confidential information. The clause will provide NHS Digital with the clarity it needs to use health and care data to benefit the public and support the health and care system safely and appropriately. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

[Alex Norris]

As the Minister says, the clause deals with the Health and Social Care Information Centre, known to its friends as NHS Digital. This is a crucial body, and everything we have heard in debate so far, and in part 1 of the Bill, makes NHS Digital’s role even more central. The provisions in the Bill are modest; to use the Minister’s preferred language, they are de minimis. NHS Digital will be crucial as the body that can bring together, under one roof, information held by various organisations, and that can make sense of multiple systems in order to get the right information out, which is difficult. As we have heard, the history is chequered.

I hope that when the Minister sums up, we will at least hear a commitment that goes beyond what is in the Bill, and that NHS Digital is empowered to get a grip on our data across the entire piece. This is very much in the spirit of what I just talked about; there are multiple processes, all of which will at some point go through NHS Digital, which makes it an important clearing house. I hope Ministers will have a keen eye on its resources, and technical expertise. There is a real need for the organisation to demonstrate leadership, politically and at official level, and to pull the system together. I hope that we will hear a little about that, and about the outlook for NHS Digital. I am grateful for the point about private companies’ data; I will not reiterate that.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his remarks and their tone. I hope that I can reassure him, in the few brief moments that I will take to sum up, that we recognise entirely NHS Digital’s current and potential role in helping to pull the piece together, adopting an holistic approach to data, and making sure that there is a coherent data strategy that works. I am confident and reassured that it has the technical expertise and resources to continue to develop its work and deliver for people in this country. I also reassure him that it continues to be a key priority of Ministers and the Secretary of State to ensure that NHS Digital has the tools it needs to do the job, so that, to go back to the thread that has run through our debate this morning, it uses its data to save more lives and provide more treatment, and does so in a way brings the public and our electors along with it. I hope that reassures him, and I am grateful for his remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82

Collection of information from private health care providers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Edward Argar]

Clause 82 enables NHS Digital to require private healthcare providers to provide data, where this is necessary or expedient in order to comply with a direction by the Secretary of State to collect information. It does this by amending section 259 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

This provision will enable a consistent approach to the use of data, supporting improved safety and quality across private and NHS health services. The need for this was underlined by the Paterson inquiry, which examined the case of Mr Paterson, a breast surgeon who worked both privately and for the NHS and was found guilty of wounding with intent in relation to unnecessary surgery. NHS Digital has been working with the Private Healthcare Information Network to develop the acute data alignment programme. These provisions will support that work and enable data to be required from private providers where it is needed.

This provision is needed to ensure that the system has the information it needs to better understand the quality and safety of services across private healthcare and the NHS. NHS Digital will be able to exercise this power only where it has been directed to establish an information system by the Secretary of State, and information from private providers is necessary or expedient for that system to be established or to operate. That means we can ensure that demands on private providers are proportionate and necessary, and that they do not duplicate other requirements.

Clause 82 will provide NHS Digital with the powers it needs to contribute to the work that is being done to address issues of patient safety and quality identified through the shocking case of Ian Paterson. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Alex Norris]

We think that this measure is particularly important. Private companies must play their role in the process and share their information, just as we would expect the NHS and local authority bodies to do. However, we want clarity that there will be no refuge to be had from hiding behind bogus confidentiality on commercial grounds. That is not explicitly recognised in the Bill, but I am hoping that I have read this right and the Minister can confirm that that is because proposed new section 251ZA, which clause 79(3) will insert into to the 2012 Act, allows the Secretary of State to compel the provision of that information if they judge it to be necessary.

[Edward Argar]

That is my understanding. If I have misunderstood, I will, of course, correct the record for the shadow Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83

Collection of information about adult social care

[Alex Norris]

I beg to move amendment 143, in clause 83, page 73, line 23, after “assistance” insert

“or any form of reablement and rehabilitation provided under section 2 of the Care Act 2014 to reduce the need for care and support”.

This amendment is consequential on NC47.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 47—Registration of tertiary prevention activities in respect of provision of social care—

“(1) Section 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) In subsection (3), at end insert ‘or any form of reablement and rehabilitation provided under section 2 of the Care Act 2014 to reduce the need for care and support’.”

This new clause would bring reablement and rehabilitation provided under section 2 of the Care Act 2014 to reduce the need for care and support into the purview of the Care Quality Commission.

[Alex Norris]

These measures would bring reablement and rehabilitation provided under section 2 of the Care Act 2014, for the purpose of reducing the need for care and support, into the purview of the Care Quality Commission. Unlike other adult social care functions, rehabilitation and reablement services are not currently part of regulated adult social care activities. There is no reporting, guidance on service standards, monitoring or inspection. That is despite the fact that rehab activities carry a level of risk similar to that of other adult social care interventions. This is particularly pertinent because rehabilitation services will be critical for those who are recovering from long covid.

One example that would fit into this category is vision rehabilitation. There is evidence from the Royal National Institute of Blind People that there are individuals who have been waiting since 2018 for their vision rehab. That will, of course, have been affected by the pandemic. However, those waiting more than two years, who have had this very profound change in their lives, need to develop new skills that they previously would have relied on their sight to achieve. The sooner that can be done, the better, because there are going to be so many other obstacles to adapt to.

The pandemic alone is not reason enough to offer comfort there. In the RNIB’s research, an inquiry made to lead councillors for adult social care in England last year found that about four in 10 did not know that vision rehabilitation formed part of that portfolio. An element of that will be because it is an unregulated function. Having been such a portfolio holder, I remember that you are very conscious of regulated provision in your area, because of the seriousness that comes with that, and I want to explore this gap a little.

Of course, the past 18 months have been extraordinary circumstances. Being a regulated activity on the same level of other adult social care activities would not fix the problems on its own, but it would have made a difference. It would certainly have given those gaps greater prominence. That might have been the beginning of addressing them. Indeed, there is a sense in the sector that this level of regulation would improve the visibility and priority of these services to senior managers and lead members by allowing for better data collection, for guidance, for quality standards to be developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and for inspection services by the Care Quality Commission.

I will not say much more on that. It may well be that this is not the best mechanism to do those things, but I would be keen to understand why this particular element of adult social care is unregulated when so much effort is put into regulating other elements of it. Rehabilitation and reablement are particularly important.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the shadow Minster for tabling the amendment and enabling us to have this discussion and air this issue. I understand his intentions in the amendment and new clause 47. It is right that social care services are appropriately and effectively regulated, and this includes rehabilitation and reablement. However, I do not believe that the amendment and the new clause are the right way of achieving the intended outcome.

Where providers carry out regulated activities as defined under schedule 1 to the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, rehabilitation and reablement services are already within the scope of the CQC’s activities. As such, most rehabilitation and reablement services are CQC registered and are usually carrying on the regulated activities of accommodation, personal care, and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The definition of social care in section 9 of the 2008 Act is already sufficiently broad to cover reablement and rehabilitation provided under section 2 of the Care Act 2014. If there are concerns about the scope of CQC regulatory activities in relation to these services, they would perhaps be more appropriately picked up as part of the ongoing review of the 2014 Regulations. That work would probably sit better there. We intend to publish the response to that public consultation on the review in due course. For that reason, I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment and perhaps seek to use that process and that review as the mechanism by which to further air these issues.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for that reassurance. That does provide comfort, certainly on the CQC aspect. The driver behind the amendment was as much that the CQC sharpens its focus for local authorities. I am not quite sure that we have got to the point where this will close that gap. However, there is a good mechanism by which to do so, so I might pursue this later, rather than pushing it to a Division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Edward Argar]

This clause inserts a new chapter 3 into the Health and Social Care Act 2012, relating to information about adult social care. It introduces a new power for the Secretary of State to require regulated adult social care providers to provide information relating to themselves, their activities or individuals they have provided care to. The information may be sought only for purposes connected with the health or adult social care system in England, and its processing will need to comply with the UK general data protection regulation. Disclosure of commercially sensitive information is restricted under new section 277B(2).

As the shadow Minister set out, the clause enables the Secretary of State to delegate this function to the Health and Social Care Information Centre—known to its friends as NHS Digital—or to a special health authority, or to arrange for other persons to exercise them. Any such person would be subject to the restrictions on onward disclosure set out in new section 277B in the same way as the Secretary of State.

The clause is crucial for helping us to fill data gaps, understand more about self-funders and better manage emergency situations. Data from local authorities can show only part of the picture, as individuals who privately fund care have little or no contact with a local authority. That needs to be addressed to support local authorities to manage provider markets and secure improved outcomes for all receiving care and support.

The provisions will support a consistent and transparent approach to the processing of data across privately and publicly funded care to enable improved safety and quality of provision. Without that data, our ability to effectively identify and manage emerging risks and issues and to take appropriate action will be restricted.

The clause will enable us to collect higher-quality and more timely information, fill data gaps, support high-quality provision of services, and manage risks at local, regional and national levels. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

10:31

[Alex Norris]

To date we have discussed 83 clauses, and we might finally have found a little note of integration. Local authorities not only want to share their data, but they want a greater sense of the data that they do not have, as the Minister said. They are desperate to do this. They want the all the needs of their service users to be met, but they are frustrated by a system that is atomised and hard to navigate. We know that that is also exhausting for patients and their families. I know that local authorities will jump at the chance to use the provisions effectively, but I have a couple of questions.

First, is there an expectation and obligation that the data sharing will be a two-way street? There are times when local authorities are frustrated about their ability to get information either out from the centre or from local health services. I would not want that opportunity to be missed. Secondly, to reiterate a point I made earlier, it is a pain getting systems to talk to each other. Will the Minister and his officials look at what support and time may be needed to implement the measures?

[Edward Argar]

I am, as ever, grateful to the shadow Minister. On his final question, about the burden of the additional data that we want to collect, which is a fair one, the aim is to reach a point where we can collect and share data across the sector in a way that minimises those collection burdens. That will include giving careful consideration to the frequency and nature of data collection. We will seek feedback from those engaged in the process and carry out appropriate assessments of it.

The capacity tracker, which is a web-based digital insight tool that we used to collect provider data in near-real time to help manage the pandemic, currently has a very high completion rate. We do not anticipate that any further mandated collection will create a significant burden in addition to that tracker. We learned during the pandemic that it is one of the things that will have beneficial applications in future. The capacity tracker currently operates on a voluntary basis, but it has high sectoral coverage—about 95% of adult social care providers are voluntarily using it. That, I suspect, is motivated by the infection control fund incentives, but our intention is to make it as simple and as easy as possible for people to continue using the tracker without imposing a burden on them. We recognise, however, that if those incentives are not there, the balance of burden and compliance changes, so we are looking at longer-term collections, which would likely be required far less frequently than the frequent iterations involved in managing a pandemic.

We therefore believe that we have struck the right balance, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to keep the matter under review and seek to strike the appropriate balance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84

Enforcement of duties against private providers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Edward Argar]

The clause inserts a new chapter into the Health and Social Care Act 2012 dealing with the enforcement of information provisions. It enables regulations to be made to impose financial penalties on private providers that, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with an information standard or a requirement to provide information, or that provide false or misleading information. I am sure that you, Mr Bone, and members of the Committee will be pleased to hear that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament. This allows us to provide for enforcement in respect of private organisations, which are not subject to usual accountability mechanisms and judicial review in the same way as public bodies. The clause also provides for the regulations to set out details such as the amount of the penalty, as well as safeguards such as notice of the penalty and an opportunity for the person to make representations and to appeal to the first tier tribunal. 

Clause 84 enables the Secretary of State to direct a special health authority to exercise the enforcement functions under regulations made under these new provisions and to give directions to the special health authority about the exercise of those functions. That provision and the related information provisions in the Bill are part of the wider strategy for health and care data, which aims to ensure more effective use of data across health and adult social care to deliver better treatment for patients, better health results for people who need care and support, and better decision making, research and support for those on the frontline. Our expectation is that those aims will be delivered through the commitments in that data strategy, including the legislative changes that we are making. The use of fines or, in the case of public bodies, judicial review is—as always—a mechanism of last resort but an important part of achieving those aims. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Alex Norris]

The clause is an important counterpart to clause 82. If private organisations do not comply with their duties, enforcement will be necessary, although we hope it will not prove to be so very often.

As the Minister said, much of this has been left to regulations, so we are flying a little blind, but his point about the affirmative procedure is welcome as we will have a chance to revisit the issue. Ahead of that, however, we suggest that the Government consider two things in formulating regulations. First, a private company should not be able to pay its way out of its responsibilities. The fine alone should not discharge the notice, and instead the information should still be forthcoming.

Secondly, in pursuit of that, under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 the Secretary of State has the power to injunct a company and stop it trading if it does not comply with its responsibilities to publish a statement on modern slavery and its supply chain. A similar provision in the Bill would be highly effective. I hope that the Minister and his officials will consider that when they formulate the regulations. We will have a further debate on this at that juncture.

[Edward Argar]

I am happy to bear in mind those sensible points as we look to the formulation of regulations. I am grateful to the shadow Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85

Medicine information systems

[Dr Whitford]

I beg to move amendment 65, page 77, line 3, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (3A),”

This amendment, together with Amendment 66, would allow specified people and organisations who are required to provide information for a registry or information system to provide information to NHS Digital in pseudonymised form.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 66, page 77, line 12, at end insert—

“(3A) The provision mentioned in subsection (2)(b) must enable those required to provide information to provide information in pseudonymised form.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 65.

Amendment 64, in clause 85, page 77, line 33, at end insert—

“(5A) The Scottish Ministers may exempt persons to whom subsection (5) applies and who are in Scotland from any requirements imposed by regulations under this section.”

This amendment would allow Scottish Ministers to exempt providers in Scotland from participating in any particular registry or medical devices information system.

Amendment 61, in clause 85, page 77, line 34, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (6A),”

Amendment 62, in clause 85, page 77, line 47, at end insert—

“(6A) Provision under subsection (6)(c) and (d) may only provide for the disclosure, use or (as the case may be) further disclosure of information for purposes of public health analysis, and must prohibit disclosure, use or further disclosure of information for commercial use.”

This amendment would require that the disclosure of information will only be for the purposes of public health analysis and not for commercial use.

Amendment 63, in clause 85, page 78, line 1, leave out

“includes power to vary or revoke the directions by a subsequent direction”

and insert “—

(a) includes power to vary or revoke the directions by a subsequent direction, and

(b) is subject to the consent of—

(i) the Scottish Ministers insofar as the direction makes provision for any matter which falls within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament,

(ii) the Welsh Ministers insofar as the direction makes provision for any matter which falls within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru, and

(iii) the Northern Ireland Ministers insofar as the direction makes provision for any matter which falls within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

This amendment would require the appropriate authority to obtain the legislative consent of the devolved governments before powers under this clause are exercised.

Amendment 60, in clause 85, page 78, line 9, at end insert—

“(8A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made without the consent of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Ministers.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the legislative consent of the devolved governments before powers in this clause are exercised.

Amendment 67, in clause 85, page 79, line 8, at end insert—

“(4) Provision under subsection (3) which changes the territorial extent of provisions of Chapter 2 of Part 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (constitution and functions etc of the Health and Social Care Information Centre) and—

(a) relates to Scotland may only be made with the consent of the Scottish Ministers,

(b) relates to Wales may only be made with the consent of the Welsh Ministers, and

(c) relates to Northern Ireland may only be made with the consent of the Northern Ireland Ministers.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the legislative consent of the devolved governments before regulations under this provision are made.

[Dr Whitford]

I should like to speak to the whole group of amendments because they all relate to one another—amendments 65, 66 and 64 are very much about the form of data, which I discussed earlier.

The principle of the clause relates to the powers that are going to be given to the Health and Social Care Information Centre. It is given a power to require, so it can demand data. As a Scottish MP I am aware that data handling under NHS Scotland is different. Our data systems are different. We have a real concern that there is no mention of consultation, let alone legislative consent. For the public across the UK, the way in which their data is handled, who owns and controls their data and what is done with it are critical. We did not take part in the care.data project or Google DeepMind. There has not been any attempt within NHS Scotland to commercialise data, but we have very innovative working from Public Health Scotland and the academic universities. We do not want to see that undermined.

It is disappointing that there is no recognition in the clause that there should be both consultation and consent from the devolved Health Ministers. Proposed new section 7A(2) and 7A(4) give the power to require, and amendments 61 and 62 relate to proposed new section 7A(6) on how data is used and to whom it is disclosed, which we discussed earlier.

On proposed new section 7A(3) relating to the form of data, I totally support registries, particularly of devices. We are all aware of vaginal meshes. I remember wading through case sheets at the time of the PIP breast implant scandal, even though I knew we had never used them, because the only way to prove that none of my patients had had them was to go through literally every single operation note and sign it off.

Amendments 65, 66 and 64 relate to the form of data and specify that the Health and Social Care Information Centre would have power to decide what kind of information would be included in individual patient information. Amendments 61 and 62 relate to what we talked about earlier: disclosure to third parties, which is of public concern.

Amendments 63, 60 and 67 relate to proposed new section 7B(5)(b), which is the power to change the territorial extent. Although most of these provisions talk about getting data on social care from local government in England, it is completely within this Bill that the information centre would be able to demand data from devolved health centres and that the Bill’s territorial extent could be changed later by regulation, and without consultation, let alone legislative consent. All my amendments relate to the same basic principle: the four health services run separately, use different data systems and have different principles for sharing, using and analysing data, and whether they feel that sharing that with commercial companies is actually in the best interests of research, of patients and of clinical communication.

It is not necessary for pharmaceutical companies to have access to pseudonymised or individual data to study the functioning of their drugs. They require analysed, anonymised data that has been handled by trusted academics and researchers, whether from Public Health England or working in collaboration with universities. The amendments call for both consultation and legislative consent, without which the devolved health services and their principles of keeping data within the NHS and the public health system will be undermined. The Government need to talk to the devolved nations about that. They saw this Bill the day before it was launched. That is not consultation. That is not collaboration. That is not involvement.

It may well be that Ministers feel that a central registry of individual, identifiable details makes sense, or they may feel that it should be pseudonymised and brokered by the individual health services, because it will be those services that will have to contact patients if devices are found to be unsafe or need reviewing or if people need further surgery. This is about the lack even of consultation. As we have talked about all morning, data is so important to the public and to patients that legislative consent should be put into all those clauses of the Bill. I am disappointed that none of the devolved Ministers got to see the Bill when it was being put together, and as we heard from the Welsh Health Minister during the evidence sessions, her concerns are exactly the same as those of the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care.

That is what I call for the Government to do, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

10:45

[Alex Norris]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire on her amendments and the case she made for them. I remember with fondness that during proceedings on the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 we were able to offer constructive ways in which information regarding medical devices could be collected and used. We managed to move the Government on that. I hope we have similar success on these proposals too, because those were arguments well made.

Amendments 65 and 66 get to the heart of building confidence regarding data among the general public. There is widespread understanding about anonymised data and about datasets so big that individuals cannot be recognised, but we know that sometimes, if we want more detail, and particularly around rarer conditions or in rural and more isolated communities, we risk identification. Giving our information leaders the tools with which to protect individuals while still delivering the desired outcome is a sound principle and is part of hearing the message that was sent from our constituents, so we can start to rebuild trust. Providing such extra tools would be proportionate.

Turning to amendment 64, devolution is at its best when the four nations can exercise the advantage of local knowledge and leadership but collectively harness separate oversight to tackle collective challenges. That is important, particularly for the use of data. I strongly believe it will be in the interests of people across the United Kingdom for all four nations to have similar systems of standards and alignment on data. I am conscious that the challenges in north Nottingham will be similar to the challenges in north Cardiff, but devolution may well mean that services in Cardiff are different from those in Nottingham; that is part of the process. It can also mean that the outcomes are different, and we may want to know that, so that one community can, if it wants to, change to replicate what another is doing. I am not arguing against common usage; I think it is important, but we do not want a situation where the Secretary of State seeks to act with overbearing control as a first among equals. The mutual benefits of sharing data are so clear to all parties that they ought to be able to be agreed on a good-faith and negotiated basis. It should not need compulsion from the Secretary of State; in fact, that would be a significant failure. Therefore, the opt-out specified would be proportionate in this case.

Amendments 61 and 62 are crucial. The general practice data for planning and research process fell over because a significant part of the population did not trust the Government to handle their data appropriately. There is widespread concern about the Government’s relationship with big commercial entities, whether in the planning process, political donations or covid contracts. They are not scare stories or political fluff; they are real issues, they are in the public consciousness, and there is a sense that that relationship and the balance with the commercial sector is not one where the calibration is right.

On data, we must at every opportunity send the loudest possible signal that there are irremovable firewalls between people’s data and commercial usage. That works on two levels. First, as mentioned there is a lack of trust that the data will not be handed over to big commercial companies. We know that the mega-giants in social media have an insatiable desire for our data, and the old adage that social media is only free because our data is the product rings true. The NHS is not like a social media platform, though; it is free at the point of use, but we have paid for it through our taxes. It is not a free service we get in return for sharing our data, and there is no mandate to simply pass on the information collected as a result of our healthcare.

Let us be honest: what confidence would we have in sending the Government to negotiate with these companies? We have seen the painstaking process involved in just getting them to pay tax in this country; I would not, with full confidence, send a Prime Minister to negotiate a fee for our data, because I suspect we would end up paying the companies. This is an opportunity to be absolutely, immovably and irreversibly clear that we do not think that they should be near this data.

Secondly, it is worth reiterating that it is not as simple as just not handing data over. Even through legitimate and beneficial use of data, we are still at risk of getting a bad deal. For example, we no doubt want to use population-level healthcare to work out what conditions we may need new treatments for in the future. For that reason, we want researchers to use this data, and from that new treatments and drugs will emerge. Big pharmaceutical companies stand to gain from this, so how is it to be accounted for? We have a stake and have played a part in that process, so we ought to have a share of the benefits. How will the premium that we pay for the new treatments reflect the contribution that we have made—bluntly, where is our dividend? Those are the reasons that the GPDPR process fell apart, and why there is so much suspicion about the Government’s handling of data more generally. If we keep repeating the same approaches we will get the same outcomes. This is a moment to change that and to send a signal that our data will be protected from commercial interests; I hope the Minister will meet this moment.

Finally, on amendments 60 to 63 and 67, I will not rehearse the arguments I have previously made. I can conceive of times when NHS bodies, local authorities, community and voluntary sector providers or private sector providers might fall short of the expectations we have of them on data sharing, and exceptions where the Secretary of State may need to step in. That is why the Opposition have supported earlier clauses in part 2. That is a reasonable and proportionate way of ensuring that the data sharing regime is an enabling regime. I cannot think that applies to the devolved nations. All four nations are partners in the common pursuit of improving health outcomes; we may diverge in approach, but the common goal is the same. I cannot conceive that there will be such a divergence on data that it would be legitimate and wise to resolve it by working without shared consent. I hope, in the light of the arguments made, that the Minister will revisit that point.

[Edward Argar]

To the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire about the relationship with Edinburgh, while it is correct that a number of these clauses, and a large part of the Bill, were not finalised in their drafting until a day or two before publication, it is important to say that since the beginning of this year Scottish Government officials have had sight of the intentions and have been discussing with UK Government officials the wording and content of these clauses. I appreciate that this is not necessarily the same as a Minister seeing the exact wording, but that relationship and transparency has been there at that level.

I also put on record my gratitude to Humza Yousaf, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. I spoke to him a week or two ago, and with tragic timing, in that conversation he asked me to pass on his best wishes to James Brokenshire for his recovery. I know that they got on well, and I hope that I have a similar relationship with Humza, who is pragmatic, and I appreciate the work that he is doing on this. We continue to talk, because I am keen that we have that healthy relationship and it is my intention that we respect the Sewel convention and work together to come to an agreed position. It is challenging because there are genuine differences of principle on how things should be interpreted, but I am committed to working with him, as he is with me, to find a way to reach a common position that respects everyone’s principles and approach.

The medicine information systems clauses give us an important opportunity to ensure we have the highest quality evidence on which to base critical regulatory decisions. If we get this right, there is real potential, which has been alluded to by all Members, to take a step forward in the way medicines are monitored, risks are identified and action is taken to protect patients. We need to provide for the most effective operation of this system to realise the full benefits for patients across the UK.

The detailed operation of the system will need to be carefully considered further as we develop the regulations under the clause. It will probably be important that the systems are able to receive information that is fully identifiable to ensure accurate linkage and deduplication of data. That is necessary to ensure that the information system is able to capture a comprehensive picture of a patient’s treatment to generate robust evidence, and that if a patient moves from one area of the UK to another, they are not lost from the registry.

Robust decision making on patient safety must be made using accurate data, which can only be achieved by processing identifiable data from the four nations to create the UK-wide information system. That necessitates precise data linkage due to the nature and potential rarity of harmful events based on multiple identifiable data points. It is proportionate to use identifiable data to understand potentially adverse patterns early.

Patient-identifiable information is also necessary where inclusion in a registry is to be used as a risk minimisation tool, where a patient needs to be identifiable in the registry to their healthcare providers, or if information systems are linked with wider safety monitoring mechanisms already in place, such as the yellow card scheme, through which the public and healthcare professionals can report adverse incidents experienced with a medicine to MHRA, to further strengthen the data it collates.

It is not necessary to make provision in the Bill, because the powers in clause 85 give the ability to follow the most appropriate approach on the collection and disclosure of data, following discussion with stakeholders on the detail of the future regulations. The confidentiality and security of patient data and the reassurance that offers to patients is paramount. I hope I can assure the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and other Members that all data held in a medicines information system will be processed in compliance with data protection legislation, which places crucial safeguards on the use of that information. That includes data principles such as lawfulness, fairness and transparency, purpose limitation and data minimisation—meaning that the minimum necessary information will be collected to meet the required purpose.

I recognise the importance of ensuring the appropriate and proportionate use and access to information in a medicine information system. As part of our consultation on the regulations to establish and operate a medicine information system, we will engage with patient groups and other stakeholders across the UK, as well as the devolved Administrations, on the content and scope of the system to ensure we do what is right for patients.

On amendment 64, at official level we have been in discussions with the devolved Administrations since February about the provisions in the Bill, particularly those for which at an early stage we identified a shared agreement that legislative consent was required. Clause 85 is one of those. I would like to put on record my gratitude to those officials—we often talk at ministerial level, but they worked very hard for some time in the spirit of finding a way forward that works for everyone. Let me say the same in respect of the devolved Administrations, who have spent considerable time working with us.

Without going into too many details, because those discussions are continuing, I have had constructive discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care in Edinburgh. I am keen, as he is, to do what we can to move those discussions forward. I hope we will be able to provide further reassurance over any outstanding areas of concern to the DAs, and where necessary and agreed, to table amendments ahead of Report. I hope that gives the hon. Lady some reassurance that I am directly engaged with the Cabinet Secretary and I will continue to be so. I am due to have another conversation with him in the coming days, and I have in my bundle another draft letter I am due to send him addressing some of the details of the granular points we are now looking at. I hope we will be able to make progress.

For medicine information systems to be truly effective as a tool, they need to cover all patients using the medicine across the UK. The regulatory decisions taken on the basis of the data collected will apply to the licensing of that medicine across the whole of the UK. My concern about Scottish Ministers choosing whether Scottish providers should or should not participate in the information system is that it could risk a fragmented approach, which is why we are having those discussions at policy level.

11:00

The amendment would apply only to medicine information systems. However, I note that the hon. Lady also refers to the medical devices information system. My memory may fail me, but I recall that the regulation enabling the medical devices information system was introduced in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, which was passed by both Houses and was subject to a legislative consent motion, agreed by the Scottish Parliament at the time.

The amendments in the Bill related to the medical device information system are technical in nature. We believe that, having got where we are, it would not be appropriate to revisit those substantive points, which were debated fully and voted on in the context of that previous piece of legislation. I again commit to working as closely as I can with the devolved Administrations to find a way forward.

Turning to amendments 61 and 62, as we have debated in other clauses, the Government are committed to championing the safe, effective use of data, enabling it to flow in a lawful, secure and appropriate way to improve outcomes for citizens. NHS Digital allows information to be used for purposes connected to health and care by organisations that have a legal basis and legitimate need to use the data. That approach enables data to be made available for a range of purposes that improve health and care. In some instances, such a use may have a commercial aspect, for example when informing the commissioning of tertiary services, such as paediatric services for children adversely affected by medicines taken in pregnancy, or when supporting research by organisations at the earlier stages of developing new treatments.

I recognise that individuals, regardless of where they live in the UK, will rightly want to be reassured that their information will be used in a trustworthy and appropriate manner. NHS Digital does not approve requests for data where the purpose is for marketing, insurance or similar purposes. That would extend to systems established under this clause. We would also continue to build on the safeguards in place to ensure that information will be appropriately protected and to ensure transparency about how it is used and by whom. The Government will work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that differences in approach to the use and disclosure of information across the UK are taken into consideration in developing the medicines information system.

Finally, I turn to amendments 63, 60 and 67. Amendment 60 would require consent to be obtained from all the devolved Administration Ministers in each case where the regulation-making power in clause 85 relating to medicines and information systems is exercised. Similarly, amendment 63 would require consent to be obtained from the devolved Administrations before the power in clause 85 to give a direction can be used. Amendment 67 would require consent to be obtained from the devolved Ministers before the power in clause 85(5) relating to territorial extent of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 could be exercised.

Clause 85 would enable the capture of data on the use of specific medicines throughout the UK to support high-quality evidence on their use, benefits and risks, and will be a significant step forward in improving the monitoring of medicines. As I have said, we are seeking to implement a system that works for the whole of the UK and ensures the safety of all patients. I reiterate that I am committed to working with the devolved Administrations to see if we can do just that.

The crux of what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire is getting at is “consult or consent”, and the difference of interpretation on which is the more appropriate. Without going into too much detail, those are exactly the conversations I am having with her colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. Those discussions are ongoing, but I hope we will be able to make further progress. My previous conversations with him have been typically well informed and positive, and I hope we continue to make further progress.

It is important to be clear that clause 85(5), which would be affected by amendment 67, is a technical provision. Regulations made in relation to medicines and medical device information systems will introduce more substantial functions for NHS Digital in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To ensure that NHS Digital can effectively undertake its UK-wide function in relation to the medicines and medical devices information systems, it is appropriate that certain provisions relating to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 can form part of the law for the whole of the UK. That is achieved through the power in clause 85(5).

That power can be exercised only as part of the regulations that deliver either the medicines or the medical devices information systems. The power applies only to certain provisions in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 that relate to the functions and constitution of NHS Digital. Therefore, use of the power is appropriately limited, and is also subject to the same public consultation requirement before any changes can be introduced through those regulations. It is not the intent to impact the range of other elements of the 2012 Act outside of the context of NHS Digital’s functions under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021.

The Government are committed to ensuring that all patient data are captured efficiently, stored safely and used effectively, including those from patients within the devolved Administrations. To reiterate one more time, I commit to continuing to work closely with the devolved Administrations in discussions on this. I cannot promise what the outcome of those discussions will be; that would be wrong while they are going on. However, I commit to continuing to engage in good faith with the devolved Administrations to see whether we can make further progress. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire might consider withdrawing her amendment, but obviously that is her choice.

[Dr Whitford]

I welcome the Minister’s constructive comments. Obviously, I am not party to the consultations that are going on. I am still disappointed that there was not provision for both consultation and, where necessary, legislative consent. As the Minister clarified, those registries will absolutely contain individual patient data. As a surgeon, of course I support the principle of registries and how they are put together, but the responsibility for data in NHS Scotland and in the other devolved nations lies with the Health Ministers of those nations. It is disappointing that there was nothing put in these provisions.

I hope that the consultation goes forward. I will therefore not push the amendments. Obviously, I reserve the right to table amendments at a later stage. However, it is important that the Government recognise that the same concerns that we have heard around GP data in England would then apply in Scotland, where we have not taken any kind of commercial approach in the past, and that there will be a recognition of the role of those health Ministers. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Edward Argar]

As we have discussed in the context of the various amendments, clause 85 inserts a new chapter, 1A, into the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. It introduces a new power to make regulations that would provide for one or more medicines information systems to be established and operated by NHS Digital. The power may be exercised only for the specified purposes set out in the provision: namely, purposes relating to the safety, quality and efficacy of human medicines and the improvement of clinical decision making in relation to human medicines. The clause sets out the types of provisions that could be made by the regulations and, to ensure full engagement, includes a mandatory public consultation requirement that must be fulfilled before any regulations are made.

Medicines information systems will enhance the capture and collation of information on the uses and effects of specific medicines across all four nations, including medicines prescribed to patients by the NHS and private healthcare providers. That information will be used by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to enhance post-market surveillance of medicines by enabling the development of comprehensive UK-wide medicines registries, which will be used to drive improvements to patient safety. The evidence generated through medicines registries can be used to inform regulatory decision making, support local clinical practice and provide prescribers with the evidence needed to make better-informed decisions. For example, where safety concerns have led to the introduction of measures to minimise risk to patients, comprehensive medicines registries will enable early identification and investigation of cases where those measures are not being followed, so that additional action can be taken to improve safety at national, local or individual patient level.

The clause also ensures that we have the right powers to promptly modify what data is collected by NHS Digital as the need for new or different information about a medicine emerges in the light of changing or developing public health needs. That will provide the ability to rapidly respond to emerging risks to patient safety if and when they develop.

Given the overarching aims of the clause, it makes sense that the provisions will ultimately sit within the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, which has a similar power for establishing information systems for medical devices in section 19. To ensure the effective operation of both the medicines information systems and the medical devices information systems, the clause also introduces necessary technical amendments to the MMD Act.

The clause drives forward improvements to the safety measures that protect patients in the UK against avoidable harm from medicines, and supports the need for the establishment of registries as recommended in the independent medicines and medical devices safety review, published last year. The clause directly supports putting patient safety at the heart of regulatory decision making. It will ensure that we have robust and comprehensive evidence to address public health concerns, and enable mechanisms to track the use and effects of medicines, based on public health needs. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Alex Norris]

I had intended to go the entire period that I am in this place, however long that might be, at least trying to be a young Member, if not a new Member, but clause 85 amends a piece of legislation that I was on the Bill Committee for previously, so I feel that I cannot do that now. That is really startling. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, I and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire argued strongly for this in Committee on that Bill, and I certainly would want to see this used properly and developed. With all the daily treatments that there are—and certainly when it comes to the medical devices that are inserted into people on any given day and on every day of the year every year—we really ought to know what those things are and, when there is a problem, be able to deal with it quite quickly.

I will make one final point. The Minister references, quite rightly, the independent review—the Cumberlege review. We will be revisiting the matter in the new clauses, because the Government have not done the job properly on that review. Although there are elements in this clause that make good on some of the commitments, there are very significant things that have been left out and that the Government do not intend to do, and they have really let down the families by not doing them, so we will be returning to that point, and I hope to find the Government in listening mode when we do.

[Edward Argar]

I have nothing further to add to what we have said, save that I am always in listening mode when the shadow Minister is making his points.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)

11:14

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Nationality and Borders Bill (Fifth sitting)

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †Sir Roger Gale, Siobhain McDonagh

Anderson, Stuart (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)

† Baker, Duncan (North Norfolk) (Con)

† Blomfield, Paul (Sheffield Central) (Lab)

† Charalambous, Bambos (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)

† Coyle, Neil (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)

† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)

† Gullis, Jonathan (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)

† Holmes, Paul (Eastleigh) (Con)

† Howell, Paul (Sedgefield) (Con)

† Lynch, Holly (Halifax) (Lab)

† McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow North East) (SNP)

† McDonald, Stuart C. (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)

† Owatemi, Taiwo (Coventry North West) (Lab)

† Pursglove, Tom (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)

† Richards, Nicola (West Bromwich East) (Con)

† Whittaker, Craig (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

† Wood, Mike (Dudley South) (Con)

Rob Page, Sarah Thatcher, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 19 October 2021

(Morning)

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

Nationality and Borders Bill

09:25

[The Chair]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to what will be for some of you the first sitting of a Committee for a very long time, and for others probably the first sitting of a Public Bill Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. I am afraid that food and drink are not allowed in the Committee Room, so if any Member feels obliged to get a coffee or something, I am afraid they have to drink it outside in the corridor. Water, of course, is permitted.

Members are encouraged to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering. I shall mainly not be wearing a mask, I am afraid, because my glasses steam up and I need to be able to see my papers. I mean no discourtesy to any Members who feel either inclined or obliged to wear a mask. Hansard will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to [e-mail].

The format of the Committee Room this morning is slightly changed as a result of the pandemic. It is a sadness to me and to the Clerks that civil servants are now required to sit in the Public Gallery rather than where they would normally sit, along the side. That makes life slightly difficult for parliamentary private secretaries, who may wish to communicate messages from the civil service to the Minister. I gather that that is now done electronically, but if there is a problem please let me know. I hope that the system will work, but we need to know if there is a difficulty.

We are about to commence line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Before we do that, at the risk of teaching granny to suck eggs, I will give a very modest tutorial. I am fully aware that, as Committees have not sat for some time, there will be Members present who have never sat on a Public Bill Committee. Even those who have and, dare I say it, even Chairmen sometimes get things wrong or do not understand what is going on. It is a fairly arcane process. All the papers that are needed, in case you have not already worked this out for yourselves, are on the table in front of me. You are not supposed to walk in front of the Chair, but I will not bite your head off if you suddenly find that you need a paper that you do not have, so feel free to come and get it. I should have said at the start that when I am in the Chair—this may not be the case with Ms McDonagh; it is up to her to decide—if Members wish to remove their jackets they may do so. Given the weather, you may not wish to.

Coming to the selection list, which I hope you all have a copy of, you will note that amendments are grouped by subject of debate, which may or may not be in the order that the Bill dictates. The order is dictated by subject matter, not the sequence in which amendments have been tabled. That is why you will find that the groupings appear to be out of order. The first grouping—amendments 29 and 84—relates to clause 1, so that is pretty straightforward. The second grouping under clause 1 relates not only to clause 1 but to other clauses. If you wish later to move an amendment, only the lead amendment may be moved. Therefore, amendment 29 may be moved, but not amendment 84, and amendment 8 but not the rest of the group. The other amendments may be moved when they are reached in the Bill. The amendments to clause 10 will be debated now but moved formally when we reach clause 10.

I am sure that is as clear as mud, but it will become clear. If Members have doubts about this or any other procedure, please do not hesitate to ask; like the man from the Inland Revenue, we are here to help you.

Not all amendments will be moved. All Government amendments will be moved, but if an Opposition Member wants to move an amendment that does not appear at the start of a group, please tell us. The Clerk will note it and you will be asked to move it at the right point in the Bill.

I hope that is relatively clear. Unlike in proceedings on the Floor of the House, any Member who wishes to speak should indicate as much to the Chair—I do not have second sight. We will try to accommodate you. You may intervene more than once in Committee, whereas only one speech may be made of the Floor of the House.

At the end of clause 1 there will be a stand part debate, offering an opportunity to debate the whole clause, as amended. If I consider that every conceivable thing that can, should or needs to be said about clause 1 has already been said, I shall not permit a stand part debate: that is in my gift, not yours. I always say that you may have one bite of the cherry, but not two. I normally allow a fairly wide-ranging debate on the first group of amendments—Siobhain might take a different view—but please bear it in mind that if you avail yourself of the opportunity I am unlikely to permit a stand part debate: you cannot say the same thing twice.

I shall try to guide you as we go along, but I am probably no less rusty than you. Let us see how we get on.

Clause 1

Historical Inability of Mothers to Transmit Citizenship

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 29 in page 2, line 10, leave out “parents been treated equally” and insert

“mother been treated equally with P’s father”

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to debate amendment 84 page 2, line 14, leave out

“had P’s parents been treated equally”

and insert

“had P’s mother and P’s father been treated equally”

[Bambos Charalambous]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

I thank colleagues from across the refugee and asylum sector for their considerate and constructive scrutiny of all the proposals made in the Bill’s evidence session in September.

As part of the Opposition’s detailed scrutiny, we will express our serious concerns about the Bill, which we believe does nothing to address the crisis in our broken asylum system and seeks to penalise the most vulnerable people in our society.

I shall first consider the Bill’s impact in addressing historical injustices in British nationality law concerning discrimination, specifically in relation to British overseas territories citizenship. We generally support the proposals in clauses 1 to 5, which seek to close important loopholes.

I pay tribute to the efforts of the British Overseas Territories Citizenship Campaign, which has campaigned tirelessly over many years for the nationality and citizenship equality rights of the children of British overseas territories citizens who have suffered under UK law owing to loopholes that we shall discuss in detail. These people feel a strong connection to the UK and deserve our support.

British nationality law can be complex. Some of the complexity arises from the British history of empire and Commonwealth. In passing the British Nationality Act 1981, Parliament created British citizens and British overseas territories citizenship. In doing so, it abolished citizenship in the UK and colonies—abbreviated to CUKC—which was a unifying citizenship for all persons of the UK and its colonies. This meant that the status of some children had the potential to be changed to overseas citizens, even though they had been born and raised in the UK.

Persons unified by CUKC were therefore separated by the 1981 Act into two groups, but amendments made since mean that the two groups are no longer aligned in British nationality law.

The Bill’s early clauses seek to bring into line the two elements of British nationality—British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship. For the benefit of those on the Committee, I point out that British overseas territories citizenship is the citizenship of people connected to the territories that the UK has retained. It includes the following territories: Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Antarctic Territory, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

Clause 1 would create a registration route for the adult children of British overseas territories citizens and for mothers to acquire British overseas territories citizenship. Before the 1981 Act commenced on 1 January 1983, British nationality law discriminated against women, whose children could not acquire British citizenship through them. The Act removed that discrimination, but did not address the impact of that discrimination prior to the Act. Many people, therefore, would have been born British but for this discrimination and continue to be excluded from British nationality after the passing of the Act.

It is clear that a historical anomaly was created. Changes were made under section 4C of the 1981 Act to rectify the situation of children of British citizens, but no such rectification was made for the children of British overseas territories citizens. Members of the Committee will know that under the 1981 Act a number of cases arise in which an individual who would have qualified for automatic British overseas territories citizenship, British citizenship or the right to register or naturalise as a citizen is unfairly prevented from doing so through no fault of their own, as has been the case with the adult children of British overseas territories citizens.

We need to rectify that injustice. The historical inability of mothers to transmit citizenship should be corrected, and I am glad that is being addressed in the Bill. Clause 1 sets out to correct that and create a registration route for the adult children of British overseas territories citizen mothers to acquire British overseas territories citizenship.

The Opposition generally support the changes proposed in clause 1 to close that important loophole. None the less, our amendment refers to a technical matter in relation to the drafting of clause 1—specifically, that it does not follow the language previously accepted to address the injustice, as used in section 4C of the 1981 Act.

I am sure that the Committee will agree that clarity is crucial in matters of citizenship and nationality law. The language used in clause 1 is not sufficiently clear. I will explain why. For example, the clause introduces proposed new section 17A, subsections (a) and (b) of which include the terms “had P’s parents been treated equally”. As Amnesty International and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens outline, the difficulty with such wording is that it tells us nothing about the direction in which equality is to be achieved or indeed in what place.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that clarity is absolutely crucial, given the mistrust of the Home Office that often exists because of its high error rate in some citizenship and wider visa decision making processes?

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Citizenship, clarity and consistency in the law are essential, which is why we seek to rectify the position. The provisions of one Act cannot be inconsistent with those of another.

The amendment would address the difficulty by inserting the wording,

“had P’s mother been treated equally with P’s father”,

in clause 1. It would clarify the clause and the positive intention behind it. I think that there is broad agreement in the Committee on the need to address the historical inability of mothers to transmit citizenship.

[The Chair]

Ordinarily, unless the Minister wishes to intervene, we now have a debate in which any Member may take part. At the end of the debate, the Minister exercises his right to respond and the mover of the motion decides whether he wishes to press the amendment to a Division or withdraw it. If it is the latter, I seek the leave of the Committee for him to do so.

[Neil Coyle]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. Although I have been on a Bill Committee before, I am a bit rusty. We deal with just one amendment first—not the whole of clause 1.

[The Chair]

That is a very good point, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman makes it. It gives me an opportunity to explain again. You may speak to any of the grouped amendments. In this instance, you may speak to amendments 29 and to 84, although it has not been moved. Any one of the second grouping of amendments—8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and new clause 16—may be spoken to. They may be moved later. I hope that is clear.

[Neil Coyle]

Thank you, Sir Roger: that is very helpful.

Do we have to declare an interest each time we speak or once per sitting? I want to make it clear and above board that I have received support from the Refugees, Asylum and Migration Policy project. It provides policy support two days a week. I am unsure how often I have to do that in the course of a Bill Committee.

[The Chair]

We have declared interests during the evidence sessions, and personally I regard that as a declaration of interest. If a Member is in doubt and wants to do a belt-and-braces job on this, they should feel free to declare an interest and cover themselves. That is their responsibility. As far as the Chair is concerned, that job has been done already. If a Member has not declared an interest but wishes to do so, the appropriate moment for it is when they stand to speak.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful for your refresher course. We are all rusty and I ask for your forgiveness for the mistakes that I shall undoubtedly make in the days ahead.

I support amendments 29 and 84 and much of what the shadow Minister just said. I welcome the Minister to his new role. I wish him all the best—apart from with large parts of the Bill, unfortunately. He has been thrown in at the deep end, and I dare say his recess was particularly busy. However, I congratulate him on finding time to record an excellent time in the London marathon a couple of weeks ago.

This complex and technical Bill raises profoundly important issues. We are all aware of the huge concerns that have been expressed about large parts of the Bill. I would also like to thank the various organisations that have given evidence in writing, orally or in private briefings or that have drafted the overwhelming majority of the amendments that we have tabled. I thank the Clerks for their help in what is not always a straightforward process in tabling amendments at a time that has been hugely difficult for them as well as for all hon. Members. We do, however, start our line-by-line consideration on a positive note. Even though we have fundamental disagreements with many aspects of the Bill, that is not the case for part 1 where for eight ninths of the time we can have hearty agreement. We just suggest a little probing and tweaking on one or two issues.

09:45

The shadow Minister said that the Government are correcting some historical injustices of UK nationality law as well as bringing British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship law back into line. That is welcome. No doubt, it might have happened sooner, but it is good that it is happening. I pay tribute to the campaign groups that have continued to make the case over several years, including the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, Amnesty International and the BTOC campaign group which will be particularly pleased to see many of the changes in part 1 and to whom I had the pleasure of speaking briefly yesterday on a Zoom call at a time that was very early in New York.

The folk that I spoke to yesterday had suffered blatant injustices and it is important that we put faces to that. They had been denied British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship simply because of the marital status of their parents. It is hugely welcome that those injustices are now going to be fixed.

Being a citizen is absolutely fundamental to our lives and to our enjoyment of a whole host of rights. Hence the right to citizenship is enshrined in the United Nations declaration of human rights, article 15 of which confirms that everyone has a right to a nationality and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality or denied the right to change their nationality. In a practical sense, it is the right to have rights and citizenship can be a pivotal first step in providing security and a sense of safety to those who enjoy it. It is a recognition on both sides that this is someone’s country, so being unjustly deprived of citizenship is a grievous harm to suffer. We welcome the first eight provisions that correct some of those injustices and later we shall ask for the same logic to be used in other cases that we firmly believe are injustices too.

As we have heard, clause 1 seeks to correct the injustice suffered by people who would have been British overseas territories citizens but for the rules that stopped mothers passing on citizenship in the same way that fathers could. That is clearly discrimination against women and their children and is not acceptable.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I understand some of what the hon. Gentleman is saying but, by way of clarification, may I point out that there is never any doubt as to who the mother of a child is, but there are occasionally questions over the paternity? Does the wording of the amendment make it easier to define who the father is? Sometimes someone’s parent may not be the biological father. Is the difference between a father, and someone who is married to the mother who may have thought he was the father when the child was born?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the intervention but I am not sure that I followed every aspect of it. All I can say is that the definition of father in the amendment is exactly the same as the definition that the Government have used. It is not changing that at all. I will explain exactly what the amendment does in a moment.

We are talking about getting rid of the unacceptable discrimination against women and children. A correction, albeit an imperfect one, to the laws of British citizenship that does exactly the same thing has already happened. In clause 5, there is a provision that actually fixes that. However, that correction was not made to British overseas territories citizenship. The Government have already fixed it for British citizenship; the amendment is now trying to fix it for British overseas territories citizenship. In a nutshell, the question we are asking the Government is, “Why are they using slightly different wording this time round compared with last time?” That is the crux of the debate and I will come back to that point.

My amendment would allow people who have suffered injustice to register as British overseas territories citizens. That is good, but two issues arise. The first is cost and we will come to that when we consider the next group of amendments. The second is about the language used and whether it really makes sense. Amendment 29 would challenge the Government on the use of the language to correct the injustice. Slightly surprisingly, the Government have not just copied, or used copy and paste, from the fix used for British citizenship that is found in section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981. Section 4C allows for the correction of injustices by registration if someone missed out on citizenship because citizenship by descent was not provided for mothers “in the same terms” as for fathers or if someone missed out because it could not be acquired because it could not be obtained “in the same terms” for mothers as for fathers.

The Bill, in doing the same job for British overseas territories citizens, uses the terminology

“had P’s parents been treated equally”.

The key questions for the Minister have been pointed out by Amnesty International and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens in their written submissions. Why are the Government not using the same language as they used to fix the problem for British citizenship? If there is a good reason for not using that language—if there is some sort of problem with the language that was used in the case of British citizenship and the fix used for that—do we not need to go back and fix that fix, as it were? Even assuming that there is a problem and the language used has to be different, why have the Government chosen to use this language, which seems rather clunky and problematic?

Speaking about hypothetical circumstances when parents are treated equally does not make it clear, unlike the section 4C version, whether we are, to coin a phrase, “levelling up” rather than levelling down. P’s parents could be treated equally badly, as well as equally well, so the drafting leaves a lack of clarity about the fact that we want mothers to be treated the same as fathers and not the other way round. The Government like to talk about “levelling up”, so here is a chance for the Minister to do some of that and make what appears on the face of the Bill absolutely clear.

Amendment 29 provides the best wording and addresses all the points in amendment 84. It flags up another place where the issue arises and if we wound back the clock a few days, I would probably copy amendment 29 that the shadow Minister has tabled. I believe it is the best version. I will therefore not press amendment 84 to a Division, but I fully support amendment 29. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[The Chair]

Ordinarily, I would take speakers from both sides of the Committee, but if no Government Member wishes to speak at this stage, I will call the hon. Member for Glasgow North East.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I will be brief and echo what my hon. Friend has said. I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him well although I am sorry to say not with this Bill. I thank all the multiple organisations that are concerned by the Bill and supported the moves to make the changes that need to be made.

It might be a moot point but, as my hon. Friend said about amendments 29 and 84, we do not want to be in a situation in which parents are treated equally badly. I suspect that that is not what the clause is about and I hope that the Minister will say that it is fine and we will accept that. However, it is important that we acknowledge that mothers were treated unequally and wrongly. That is because, throughout the centuries, women have been treated systemically badly. Yes, of course things have improved—and this is an improvement—but we have to acknowledge it whenever there has been systemic bias against any group of people, and in this case we are talking about women and mothers. I do not think any member of the Committee would disagree that what has happened is extremely unfair but we must acknowledge it so that we can move forward. Acknowledging a problem draws attention to it. Let us not pretend that we have equality of the sexes and genders. We do not. Every time that that is acknowledged it enables us to move forward and think of other situations in which there is inequality.

We have helpfully been provided with photos of members of the Committee and been given their constituency names but when I saw the photo of the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, I thought he was the right hon. Member for Con, Scarborough and Whitby. I thought, “Where is ‘Con’?” until I realised that it referred to the fact that he is a Conservative. I am learning something new every day.

The right hon. Gentleman was factually correct to say that it is easier for mothers rather than fathers to prove their parentage. That is why I wonder why on earth it was so difficult for women to pass on their nationality to their children. There is no question who the mother is in such cases. I hope the Minister will say that he will change the language to refer to mothers and that the Government will acknowledge the inequalities between men and women and mothers and fathers. Treating parents equally should not mean that they are treated equally badly. I suspect that he does not want to do that and I support most of the provisions in this part of the Bill. That is probably the last time I shall say that today.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

I start by thanking Opposition colleagues for their warm welcome to me in my new role. It is welcome that, in the early provisions of the Bill, there is broad agreement across the Committee about the need to correct the injustices and to put things right.

I thank the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate, for Halifax, for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Glasgow North East for tabling amendments 29 and 84. They both refer to clause 1, which I am pleased to introduce because it corrects a long-standing anomaly in British nationality law. I appreciate hon. Members’ attention to detail in seeking to make sure that the new provision is clear and in line with the parallel provision in the British Nationality Act 1981 for the children of British citizen mothers. However, I do not think an amendment is needed, as the proposed wording here achieves what is intended. In saying that this provision applies to someone who would have been a citizen had their parents been treated equally, we are talking about a situation where the law applied equally to mothers or fathers, women or men.

The term “parents” is consistent with the wording used in section 23 of the 1981 Act, which determined which citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies became British dependent territories citizens on commencement. One of the three conditions that a person needs to meet to qualify for registration under this clause is that they would have become a British dependent territories citizen under section 23(1)(b) or (c) of that Act. That section refers to a person’s “parent”.

I wish to point out that we will further clarify the points that have been made in the underpinning guidance. I trust that will afford greater comfort because it is clear that the Bill is technical, so plain language will be used in the guidance itself to achieve what members of the Committee seek to achieve.

[Neil Coyle]

I, too, congratulate the Minister on his new role. If the Minister is saying that this may require further explanation in the guidance, will he agree to review it in more depth before the Bill reaches the Lords if organisations are able to present examples of case studies where the current wording may not meet the Government’s intent?

[Tom Pursglove]

I will of course be delighted to receive any such examples. I genuinely think that, as with so many cases of immigration law, the underpinning guidance plays an important role in making it clear, in plain English that people can understand, precisely what various aspects of the law entail. I am satisfied with the current wording of the clause.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I understand what the Minister says about the wording doing a job in statute, but will he say whether he thinks that the wording used has any implications for British citizenship as opposed to British overseas territories citizenship? Was a problem with the wording recognised and is that the reason why it was not copied across? Or is this Bill a wee bit different and therefore uses different wording?

[Tom Pursglove]

The short answer, based on my understanding, is no. The connected provision in the Act talks about parents and not the mother and the father, so that is why we think this is the appropriate route to take for BOTCs. I am satisfied that the current wording does what is required so I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

[Bambos Charalambous]

I have heard what the Minister has said, but we could avoid going down the path of seeking to clarify the current wording if the same wording that was used in the 1981 Act were used here. We do not see what the problem would be. If the wording in the 1981 Act is adequate, why not just repeat it in the Bill? It would provide clarity and stop problems occurring in the future. Our belief is that everyone should be treated equally, and we should not have a separation, which the amendment tries to correct, between British overseas territory citizens and British citizens. Regrettably, we will press the amendment to a vote.

09:59

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 1

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[The Chair]

Ordinarily, Mr McDonald, I will not ask this question, because I will assume that if you, or any other Member who wishes to move an amendment that has been debated but not yet called, have not notified the Chair, you do not want it to be called. However, because this is the first time, do you wish to press amendment 84 to a Division?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

No.

[The Chair]

In that case, we move on to the next grouping.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 1, page 2, line 46, at end insert—

“(7) The Secretary of State must not charge a fee for the processing of applications under this section.”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee when remedying the historical inability of mothers to transmit British overseas territories citizenship.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 7, line 30, at end insert—

“(6) The Secretary of State must not charge a fee for the processing of applications under sections 17C, 17D, 17E or 17F.”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee when remedying the historical inability of unmarried fathers to transmit British overseas territories citizenship.

Amendment 10, in clause 3, page 8, line 18, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must not charge a fee for the processing of applications under this section.”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee for British citizenship applications by certain British overseas territories citizens.

Amendment 11, in clause 7, page 10, line 25, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must not charge a fee for the processing of applications under this section.”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee on applications for British citizenship by people who have previously been denied the opportunity to acquire it on account of historical legislative unfairness, an act or omission of a public authority, or exceptional circumstances.

Amendment 12, in clause 7, page 11, line 8, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must not charge a fee for the processing of applications under this section.”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee on applications for British overseas territories citizenship by people who have previously been denied the opportunity to acquire it on account of historical legislative unfairness, an act or omission of a public authority, or exceptional circumstances.

New clause 16—Registration as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen: Fees—

“(1) No person may be charged a fee to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen that is higher than the cost to the Secretary of State of exercising the function of registration.

(2) No child may be charged a fee to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen if that child is being looked after by a local authority.

(3) No child may be charged a fee to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen that the child or the child’s parent, guardian or carer is unable to afford.

(4) The Secretary of State must take steps to raise awareness of rights under the British Nationality Act 1981 to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen among people possessing those rights.”

This new clause would ensure that fees for registering as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen do not exceed cost price. It would also ensure that children being looked after by a local authority are not liable for such fees, and that no child is charged an unaffordable fee. Lastly, it would require the Government to raise awareness of rights to registration.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

In short, the amendments say to the Government, “Having recognised an injustice and provided people with a right to have it fixed, which is very welcome, you must also ensure that that remedy is accessible to those who have been wronged.” It is about the cost of applications, and about other parts of the procedures that have been put in place. If we acknowledge that these people should have been British citizens automatically, we should not ask them to jump through other hoops. They should not have to pay any fee for an application or for biometrics, or travel hundreds of miles for a citizenship ceremony unless they want to, if that would not have been required of them had the injustice not been done.

It is all about putting the person, so far as is possible, in the position in which they would have been had the injustice not occurred. It is also about making people aware and giving them support, if they need it, to make these new rights a reality, so that we are not just passing laws but making sure they are effective. That can be vital—we know that from the Windrush scandal and the deliberately low-key efforts by the Home Office in the 1980s to advertise registration rights, to avoid a deluge of applications.

Amendment 8 provides that there should be no fee for registration applications under clause 1. As we discussed, that remedies injustices in relation to British overseas territories citizenship for women and their children. Amendments 9 to 12 would do similar in relation to three other clauses that seek to remedy other injustices: clause 2, which corrects injustices whereby people lost out on British overseas territories citizenship because of rules that prevented unmarried fathers from passing on that citizenship; clause 3, which corrects the double injustice faced by some who, having lost out on British overseas territories citizenship, then lost out on entitlement to British citizenship provided for by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; finally, clause 7, which provides for more general power to remedy injustices by registration as British overseas territories citizens or British citizens.

The Bill recognises that had our laws not been unjust, the people impacted would have been BOTCs or British citizens with no fee and no procedure. It seems only just to rectify that injustice free of charge. In relation to clauses 1 and 2, there are no fees charged for the equivalent fixes to British citizenship law, so it should be the same for British overseas territories citizenship. I was pleased to learn at the weekend, having already tabled the amendments, that back in July the Home Office had apparently written to various nationality experts to confirm that the intention was not to charge for those applications and that the same approach would be taken for applications under clause 3. That is welcome, but it would be useful for the Minister to confirm that is accurate, so that we can hold the Government to account in future, if the Treasury ever tries to force a change of approach.

I still say that Parliament’s intention should be in the Bill, because it is clear from debates around the British Nationality Act 1981 that registration fees for children were never intended to be set at anything more than the cost of processing for the Home Office. Yet a quarter of a century later, the Home Office started ramping up prices relentlessly and now makes massive profits on them. Let us all agree today that the applications should be free and ensure that our successors are aware of that by putting it into law.

Notwithstanding the welcome Home Office letter, that still leaves applications under clause 7, which is the broad discretionary clause. It would be good to have an indication of the Government’s thinking. Let us remember what that clause provides for: it is a general fix for persons who missed out on British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship because of laws that discriminated between men and women or against children of unmarried couples, or because of acts or omission by public authorities or something exceptional. If a person has been deprived of citizenship because of discriminatory laws or a mistake by a public authority, it is hard to see why they should be charged a fee for fixing that. That is certainly true where citizenship would have been automatic, hence this amendment.

As the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens and Amnesty International argued in their written submissions, fees for registration are undermining access to those procedures. The sum of £1,112 for a child and £1,206 for an adult is a long way beyond the cost—something like £372—to the Home Office of the registration process. It is particularly dangerous to ramp up the fees for applications where success is not guaranteed or certain. Under clause 7, it is not the case that someone simply has to show a date of birth and nationality of a parent and it is easy to know whether the applicant will be successful. In many cases, people will be unsure whether the Secretary of State will regard their circumstances as exceptional. Even if the circumstances are exceptional, as the clause stands, the Secretary of State still has the discretion to say, “no”, because the clause says she “may” register them in those circumstances, rather than “must”.

The lack of certainty of success, coupled with the high fee, risks causing low uptake of the new rights. We are all delighted that the new rights have been put into law, but if someone is not certain that they will be successful and they are putting at risk a huge fee, they will simply not apply and injustices will be left uncorrected.

New clause 16 would enshrine a broader principle that registration for citizenship should not be a profit-making exercise. It is vital to keep in mind the fundamental distinction between naturalisation and registration. It is possible that the root of such problems is the fact that the Home Office has come to treat those things as pretty much the same—they are not; they are very different.

People who naturalise as British citizens, and their families, have made a conscious choice to come to the UK, settle and make this their home country, and seek its citizenship. In contrast, those who register as British citizens—in the overwhelming majority of cases, they are children—did not make those choices. Often, they are British-born kids who are not automatically British at birth. They are allowed to register as British if they lived in the UK for the first 10 years of their lives; if either parent settles and becomes British before the kid turns 18; or if they were stateless at birth and live here for five continuous years. Although the Home Secretary has no discretion over that, the 1981 Act quite rightly retained a discretionary power for the Home Secretary to allow other children to register, including those who came here at an early age and who are, to all intents and purposes, British.

In 1981, Parliament repealed automatic citizenship by birth alone on the basis that birth here did not necessarily mean that someone’s connection to the country was strong enough that this should be their country of citizenship. However, Parliament was careful to put in place protections for children born here to non-British parents, for whom this clearly was or became home, hence their right to register as British citizens. Far from being equivalent to naturalisation as a British citizen—those people have picked the UK to be their home—citizenship through registration should be seen as equivalent to the British citizenship that most people in this room will have automatically enjoyed simply by being born here to British parents.

To make a massive profit from that is as outrageous as demanding that anyone in this room pay for the privilege of being British. Parliament took the view that Britain was the home country for those kids in the same way that it is for everyone in this room. Now, the Home Office is putting that citizenship way beyond the means of many. When he was Home Secretary, the now Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), accepted that that fee was a huge sum of money. The Home Office is undermining Parliament’s intentions: thousands of children cannot access the citizenship that should be theirs because the Home Office now charges that huge sum. When the fees for registration came into force, they were set at something like £30—around £100 in today’s money—simply to cover the cost of administration, and it remained like that for a quarter of a century. Since 2007, however, the Home Office has rapidly ramped up the fee, which now stands at more than £1,000. The application processing cost stands at around £360, so almost £700 of the fee is pure profit for the Home Office.

The impact on kids whose families cannot afford to register them is absolutely profound. Many will grow up unaware that they are not British citizens like their pals. That penny will perhaps not drop until they cannot join a school trip abroad or apply for college, university or a job. Without British citizenship, those children are made subject to immigration control and could feel the full implications of the hostile or compliant environment, meaning that they even run the risk of being refused access to child healthcare, employment and education, social assistance and housing, and of being detained, removed and excluded from their own country altogether. It is important to say that that affects tens of thousands of British-born children, and is surely contrary both to the Government’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and to the requirement that children’s best interests be a primary consideration in all actions that affect them.

Over the years, the Home Office has made various arguments, a number of which do not stand up to scrutiny, and I will address three of them. First, the Home Office often asserts in such debates, of which we have had several since I turned up in 2015, that the fee reflects the benefits received by the child in being able to register. That is a completely inappropriate argument. On that basis, we all should be charged a fee for our British citizenship, but as it is our right, we are not, and it should be exactly the same for those kids.

Secondly, in what I regard as an even more dreadful argument, the Home Office states that citizenship is not actually necessary for those kids, and that they can instead just apply for leave to remain. Frankly, that is an astonishing argument. If the Home Office said to anyone on the Committee, “We are going to deny you your British citizenship, but don’t worry, you can apply for leave to remain—we might even give you a fee waiver if you’re struggling to afford it”, would any of us be content with that? Absolutely not, particularly given that the leave-to-remain route is the horrendous ten-year route to settlement. To suggest that immigration leave is any sort of equivalent to being recognised as a national is quite simply insulting to those kids.

Thirdly, the Home Office makes the case that people using the immigration and nationality system can fairly be asked to pay a contribution towards its broader costs, so that British taxpayers do not have to. In some circumstances, I accept that that is true. I do not have a problem if the Home Office makes a profit on work visas, perhaps, to subsidise other work that it does, but it is totally unfair to apply that principle to people for whom the UK is home, and who are simply trying to access their right to nationality. These are not migrants choosing to come here to work, study or whatever else; they are, to all intents and purposes, British kids, and it is time that the Home Office supported them in exercising their rights to the British citizenship that reflects that, and stops trying to profit from them and put them off. Let us end this injustice now.

10:15

[Mr Goodwill]

The principle of fees reflecting the cost of delivering the service is a good one that should be applied widely across Government. It is applied, for example, at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for some of the processes that it carries out for motorists. The Passport Office reflects the cost of issuing a passport in the fee that it charges. In the vast majority of cases, the cost of these services should be reflected in the fee. When I was an immigration Minister, I would scrutinise officials and say, “Why is it so expensive to do this?” They would say, “Well, these are often quite complex cases with quite a lot of paperwork.” We must also bear in mind that there are people who try to obtain British citizenship fraudulently using fake documents. Therefore, the amount of scrutiny that needs to take place reflects that. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that we will continue to apply that principle, so that we do not see profit incentives but merely cost recovery.

[Neil Coyle]

There is a slight contradiction in what the right hon. Member is claiming, because in the practical, lived reality of examples in my constituency it is at the point that a child discovers that they need to go through the citizenship process in order to access a passport that they discover all the fees that they are obliged to pay. He says that he wants the passport process to reflect only the costs of administering that passport. For the children and families affected by this, in order to get that passport at cost they have to pay thousands of pounds, which is profit for the Home Office.

[Mr Goodwill]

As I was saying, I would always scrutinise the officials and say, “Does it actually cost this much to apply?” They gave me evidence that this was indeed an expensive operation. As I said, often fake documents are presented, and forensic work needs to be done to ensure that the identity of the person is as stated, and that the documents provided in evidence are correct.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The figures that I gave in terms of the cost to the Home Office came from, I think, freedom of information requests, so they have been carefully calculated. It is beyond doubt—I do not think the Home Office disputes this—that it makes something like £700 profit on an application that costs just over £1,000. We are talking about kids, so it is, as the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), said, a huge sum of money.

[Mr Goodwill]

As I said, I hope that the Minister will reassure us of the principle that was certainly in effect when I was in the Home Office: that this is not an opportunity to make a profit out of these people, but merely to recover the cost.

I believe that the amendments will place a greater burden on taxpayers as a whole for a service that is being provided to these applicants. I am also a little concerned about new clause 16(3), which talks about whether a person can afford the fee. I am not clear whether that means that it should be set at a level that anyone can afford, which in effect would have to be zero, or whether the proposal is for some sort of means testing, which of course would add the cost of getting financial information from the applicant. The cost of the process could end up being greater overall, although if the new clause were accepted the costs for some would be lower than for others.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The fundamental point is that a kid’s British citizenship is not a service; it is a right. I am happy to have a discussion about the wording of the new clause, but I understand that the language has been borrowed from elsewhere. The Home Office has fee waiver schemes, for example in the long route to settlement, as the right hon. Member will well know, so it is not something that the Home Office will not understand. It will be able to put in place a scheme that allows people who are generally unable to pay the fee because of their impoverished circumstances not to have to pay it. I am happy to discuss the wording if he accepts the principle.

[Mr Goodwill]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I maintain my view that the Government have it right on this occasion: the fees should reflect the cost of delivering those services, and should not fall more widely on taxpayers as a whole. Of course I have a right to a British passport, but that does not mean that I should not pay the fee to ensure that the passport is applied to me, not to somebody who is pretending to be me or trying to impersonate another citizen.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

To echo the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, no big profits are made on passports. Of course, people still have British citizenship even without a passport. A passport is a useful thing to have to prove citizenship in many circumstances. In a way, that could almost be described as a service. I think it is a pretty important one, and it is right that the Home Office does not make a huge profit on it, but the right hon. Member was not charged a fee for his British citizenship. None of us were. It is not a service that has been provided to us; it is a right, and it is a right for these kids as well.

We have had lots of support on these arguments from Conservative MPs over the years. It is very strange that it is a Scottish National party MP who tends to stand up and champion British citizenship. I thought that this would be made for Conservative MPs. Even if folk will not support us today, I encourage them to please go away and think about this, and speak to their colleagues. I think many hon. Members would have sympathy for this cause if they just looked closely.

[Mr Goodwill]

I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I maintain my position that although it is a right for these people to apply for citizenship, the cost of their doing so, and indeed the cost of ensuring that people who may be fraudulently trying to avail themselves of citizenship, should not fall disproportionately on taxpayers as a whole but on the applicants. As long as the Minister can reassure us that the fees reflect the cost, and that any high fees can be justified by the man hours spent and the time needed to check those applications, the Government should be supported on the wording in the Bill.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Before I come to what I was going to say, may I respond to the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby as well? He does not need that reassurance, and he does not need to worry about the British taxpayer, because in 2018 the Home Office made profits of £500 million by charging £500 million more than it cost to process fees. He talked about the DVLA. He cannot say that the DVLA never gets fraudulent claims; it builds them into its costs. The Home Office has already built in the cost of checking fraudulent claims, and the profit in 2018 was £500 million for the whole year, so the British taxpayer does not have to worry about that. Who has to worry about it are the people who have to pay the fees, which is what I wanted to talk about.

I will give two examples that I think will illustrate the broader point of the unfair impact on people’s lives when they have to pay fees over and above what it costs to become a British citizen or to be allowed to remain in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East was right to focus on children. After all, children have absolutely no say on what happens in their lives. Throughout all the talk about immigration, particularly asylum for instance, we talk about single men as if they are not vulnerable. I will tell the Committee about two young men who were extremely vulnerable—they are less so now—and how the fees affected their lives, stopped them living their lives, and almost ended one of their lives.

They are not young men now. If they are watching this—I doubt that they will be—I think they will be delighted that I am calling them young men; they are just younger than me. I will not give you the first one’s correct name. He adopted a Scottish name, which I will say is Fraser, even though it is not. Fraser has become part of my family. He calls my mother “Mum”. She taught him to drink whisky and he is eternally grateful for that.

[Neil Coyle]

Does she give lessons?

[Anne McLaughlin]

My mum is even less likely to be watching this, but if she is, I will certainly let the hon. Member know.

Fraser—I must remember to use the adopted name—came from Sudan. His village, where he grew up, was razed to the ground. Everybody fled, and he did not know where the rest of his family were. He assumed that his two brothers, sister, mum and dad had died, but he did not know for sure and he kept hearing rumours over the years. He was helped by the British Red Cross, so he came here as an asylum seeker and then got his refugee status. But he wanted to go back and find out, because he kept hearing rumours that his sister had managed to get away and that his mum might still be alive, although he doubted it. The British Red Cross was doing everything it could to help him, but in order to get back to Sudan he needed a British passport and to be a British citizen. He had got his refugee status, but that took something like six years beyond when he was able to apply for citizenship, because he could not afford the fees. Had he been charged what it actually cost the Home Office, he would have got home a whole lot sooner. I know that nobody in this room would have wanted what happened to him to happen, but I am just explaining what the impact of these extortionate fees can be.

It took Fraser a long time, but he did finally get back with his British passport. Members here will be very proud of me, because I went to his citizenship ceremony and stood to sing “God Save the Queen”. I do not do that terribly often, but I did it for him, because it was so important to him. He went to Sudan to see what had become of his family and he discovered that his sister had fled but had come back. His sister was there, living in very dangerous circumstances, which he was then able to help her with. She has children there; she does not want to leave Sudan, but she wants to be safe and he was able to help her. He discovered that his mum had been very ill for many years. She had not died at the time; she, too, had escaped. She had been very ill for many years but—I am trying to think how to put this—she had clung on, because she just wanted to see him one more time. But she had died two months before he got over there.

As I said, I am not for a second suggesting that anybody here or anybody drafting the legislation would not care about what happened to Fraser, but if he had had easier access, had not had to save up for years because he worked on the minimum wage in various precarious employments, and had been able to get over sooner, he could have been reunited with his family, which is a huge thing for him. He calls my mum “Mum”, because he does not have one in his life.

I will call the second person I want to talk about Matthew. He had leave to remain but had to renew it after three years. He, too, worked on the minimum wage in precarious employment, with a zero-hours contract. How could he save up the £2,000 that he had to pay to renew it? So he buried his head in the sand; he did not save it up—well, he could not possibly have saved it up, to be fair—and then his employer said to him, rightly, “I’m no longer allowed to employ you, because you don’t have leave to remain.” He said, “But I can’t afford to apply for leave to remain,” but of course the employer cannot do anything about that. He was obviously then unemployed, but he has no recourse to public funds, because he does not have any status in the UK, so his housing association is saying to him, “Where’s the rent?” A year has gone by and he has clocked up all sorts of debt. His housing association is saying, “Look, we don’t want to evict you, but we are going to have to.” That is all because he could not afford the fees—fees that were way more than it was costing the Home Office. There was no need to do this to him.

The situation then got really complicated because he discovered something—this fits in with new clause 16 and awareness raising. He did not know that it is possible for the fees to be waived if the person is in certain circumstances, and his case fitted those circumstances; they are not waived as a right, but there is that possibility. He did not know that, so he did not ask. He got a lawyer, who obviously did know it, and asked. The Home Office asked to see his bank statements for the past couple of years, and then said, “No, we are not waiving the fee,” and just left it at that. He came to me, and I asked the Home Office. The Minister there was very helpful and said, “Look, it is because he has been gambling his money away. That is why he can’t pay his fees.”

10:31

The complication was that when he got his final pay packet, knowing that he had no recourse to public funds, that his employer had to let him go, and that he had no way of paying the rent or looking after his son, he started gambling. He was not a gambling addict, but he started because what else could he do when he had no other way of paying those fees? He could have become a gambling addict—although he ran out of money and had no access to it—but gambling was not his thing. He was not interested in it, but he had no other choice. He became extremely depressed. He did not want to go, and I could barely get him to look up when I spoke to him.

Thankfully, that Minister understood what I said about why he had no other option to get those fees, and in the end they were waived. That was two years ago, so he will have to go through the process again in less than a year’s time. When the pandemic hit, he could not find employment. He may have employment now, but if he has, it is likely to be minimum wage, and he has to save all that money all over again.

Those decisions are not made because we do not want to cost the taxpayer any more money. The decision to make a profit from people has a hugely detrimental impact on their lives, including that constituent and his children. He had to send his children to live with somebody else because he could not feed them and had no heating. I put on the record my thanks those at his housing association, Spire View Housing Association, because they took an interest in the case and took it aside. Not only that, but they gave him a fuel card so that he could heat his home, and food and vouchers so that he had a little dignity and could go and buy food himself. They really helped him to get back on his feet, and it was incredible that they did that. I hope I have illustrated how excessive fees can have a massive impact in a way that I do not think anyone in this room would want them to.

[Neil Coyle]

I am a little rusty when it comes to this process, Sir Roger, so thank you for your clarifications. I missed the first evidence session, in which declarations of interest were made, because I was at my brother’s wedding, which was fantastic. For the purposes of formal declaration, as noted in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I receive support from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project in a policy capacity to support constituents and to work on relevant issues here in Westminster.

I welcome the Minister to his new role and congratulate him on completing the marathon, which of course goes through my constituency—he is welcome back to Bermondsey and Old Southwark any time. He was raising funds for Justice and Care, which could lead to interesting discussions about some aspects of the Bill. [Interruption.] I have not been heckled by technology before—these are interesting interventions. We are clear for take-off I believe.

I shall plough on. The Bill addresses access for a relatively small group, which some will welcome, but I support the amendments. [Interruption.] This is rather distracting.

[The Chair]

Order. I am terribly sorry, but clearly someone has not fastened their seatbelt. Let us try again, but if it happens again I may have to suspend the sitting for five minutes.

[Neil Coyle]

I thank colleagues for their kind words about not particularly wanting to hear my contribution and being grateful for the technical problem.

I support the amendments because I believe that the Bill misses an opportunity to address some wider process issues that need reviewing for several reasons. Fundamentally, I come back to the impact of imposing costs on people’s access to their rights and entitlements, given the delays and times involved and the impact on Home Office staff.

Let me give a practical example: the Home Office’s processes take so long and cost so much that businesses in my constituency have moved country as a result. One financial sector firm was trying to recruit someone from Japan. They were told that it would take at least six months to process an application, and that she may not even qualify to work in the UK under the process they were following. They discovered that it was cheaper and faster to up sticks, because of the price, process and times. They chose to move to Frankfurt, and in two weeks they were able to complete the registration and visa process that they could not do over here.

There is a wider problem with how long the process takes. Imposing costs adds to the bureaucratic impact on the Home Offices and the delays. At the end of March 2021, 66,000 people were waiting for initial decisions from the Home Office—the highest figure for over a decade. Of those, 56,000 had been waiting more than six months. I come back to the point that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby made about accessing a passport. If a child wants to go on a school trip and wants a passport, but cannot get it without going through a process that takes more than six months, how on earth will they go on a school trip? In that circumstance, children are denied the opportunities afforded to their classmates, even if they were born over the river here at St Thomas’ Hospital and sit next to the other children whom they do not have the same rights as. It is iniquitous.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I just want to share a story. When I was in primary 7, everyone in my class went on a trip to Paris, except me, because my parents were too strict and thought I was too young. At least I understood why. Those children cannot go because of who they are; it is not because of a decision by their parents but because they are deemed not to be equal to their classmates. I know how bad it felt to be told by my mum and dad that I was not going to Paris. It must feel 100 times worse for a child when who they are is in question.

[Neil Coyle]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. We are feeling our way. I do not want to be heavy handed, but interventions are not speeches.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I am sorry.

[The Chair]

It is quite all right. We allow greater flexibility in Committee than we do on the Floor of the House. Nevertheless, an intervention should arise directly from, and be a question to, the Member who has the floor.

[Neil Coyle]

I am not sure why the hon. Lady’s parents were concerned about Paris in particular, but the point is that they were able to make that choice. In these circumstances, children born and educated in this country who have never lived anywhere else do not have the right to decide whether they can go on a school trip.

Returning to my point about the timeframes involved, the number of people waiting over a year for a decision has risen tenfold since 2010, with 33,000 people in that position in 2020, including 7,000 children, and 2,500 people waiting more than three years. I have at least two examples in my constituency of people waiting over a decade for a Home Office decision on their status. Those people are reliant on local authority emergency support, because the Home Office has shunted the cost to councils rather than get on with the process, make a decision and end the need for more expensive emergency support.

Who carries out the process and what trust is there in the Home Office? We are well aware of the Windrush examples and the denial of entitlements to people who were legally entitled to be in this country and should have had their rights upheld. They should have been respected for their contribution to rebuilding this country, to providing our public services in particular, and to our economy more widely.

The hostile environment has damaged trust in that regard; calling only on casework experience, the Home Office had an officer placed in my council’s “no recourse to public funds” team who took away the driver’s licence of someone who was seeking support from the council, which caused even more complications in getting their situation addressed, adding more time and more delay. In this Bill, the Home Office seems to be adding more complications, process and bureaucracy, rather than addressing where things have gone wrong—and things have gone very badly wrong.

To give one example, my constituent Ade Ronke came to see me when I was first elected in 2015. At that point, her son was three years old and she had been battling for three years to try to get her status resolved. The Home Office had declared that she was in effect a person of bad character because it believed that she had been subject to a criminal prosecution. She had never been arrested, she had never been in court, and the police and courts provided proof that it was not her that the Home Office was referring to, but it took a long time. Her son was 10 years old before that case was resolved. He had grown up for seven years in a family where there was no entitlement to child benefit or housing benefit and no recourse to public funds. Throughout that process, his mother was reliant on a church group for accommodation.

The Home Office could have used the Bill to address the division that has been created between what the Government aspire to do and the faith groups and others who are providing support, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East mentioned. That philanthropic support means that there are many organisations and individuals out there who are aware of the deep disadvantage and even destitution that these Home Office policies cause, which the Bill could have addressed.

There is also an issue about numbers, which perhaps the Minister can address when he speaks. It is unclear whether the Bill will require the Home Office to take on more staff or whether it intends to increase the workload of existing staff. The staff complement has risen in the past 10 years, but productivity has collapsed. We see fewer decisions made and fewer interviews of people going through these cases per calendar month, despite the fact that there are more officers working on those cases, according to Home Office figures.

At a time when nine in 10 crimes in this country go unpunished, we should be doing everything humanly possible across the House to ensure that the Home Office can focus on law and order and its fundamental purpose of keeping our communities safe. That is not happening for my constituency on antisocial behaviour and other crimes, and it would be welcome if the Home Office could return its focus to those issues, rather than adding more bureaucracy, more costs and more time to distract from that fundamental purpose.

Linked with that question, over the past 10 years we have seen a drop in access to legal aid. I know that the Bill’s equality impact assessment suggests there will be an extension to legal aid support in some cases. I hope that the Minister, when he addresses this particular section of the Bill, will confirm that legal aid will be available to those going through citizenship processes.

As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and all the other places—I thought my constituency had a long name—said, there is also a cost issue, and the Bill misses an opportunity to address that. I support these amendments based on the cost issues alone, because we are one of the most expensive countries in the world in terms of the bureaucracy involved in this. I am proud to be British; I think this is the best country in the world and that London is the best city in the world, but it is also one of the most expensive.

To process citizenship here costs 10 times as much as in many of our neighbours: France and Spain have the lowest, but I appreciate that some on the Government Benches do not like European comparators, so let us look at the United States, as our price is already double theirs. It is also hideously expensive here compared with Canada, which charges only £400 to process citizenship, or other Commonwealth compatriots such as Australia.

I know that some Government Members will be using Australia as an example in later parts of the Bill, but perhaps they could have a look at it here as well, because Australia charges just £153 for an adult citizenship registration process, and Australia does not charge children a bean. There is a direct example within the Commonwealth of a country that has adopted a more progressive system, and perhaps we could learn from that.

10:26

Of course, those costs have risen massively, more than tripling in the last six years for leave to remain, or a 331% increase for those who prefer percentages that go above 100—something I am not massively in favour of. A 10-year route to settlement now costs an adult £12,761. That is an extortionate figure and profiteering. The Government’s own figures suggest that the Home Office costs for processing a 10-year route to permanent settlement through leave to remain is £141 per application, which is about 15% of the application costs. Obviously that leaves 85% profit to the Home Office, which is not reinvested in speeding up the process for others going through what the Bill will produce.

Those basic fees do not include the immigration health surcharge, which was just £200 in 2018 but was doubled in 2019. Another £624 was added in October 2020: three times as much as it cost in 2018 was added in one fell swoop. I hope the Minister will outline any plans for the future in that regard and let us know whether we can expect to see those costs rise dramatically again.

In terms of overall costs, more than half the 10-year route is now the immigration health surcharge—£6,240. If the Government want the NHS to cut the backlog and address all the health needs that have arisen during the pandemic, perhaps one way to support the NHS to deliver its fundamental role is to stop bogging it down in paperwork and bureaucracy and let it do its fundamental job of healthcare rather than focus on Home Office-imposed bureaucracy.

For a child, the cost of an application is £1,012, or £11,221 for those using the 10-year route to settlement—again, a massive figure. But the Home Office has revealed that the cost of processing is just £372 per application, so two-thirds of the profits for children is profiteering from misery, as we have already heard in some examples—something I will come back to.

The third reason that we need the Bill to go further in reviewing costs and other issues is that some of this is legally required by the Government due to court decisions. I want to flag up a brilliant campaign that a school in my constituency was involved in called Children into Citizens, which Surrey Square Primary School championed alongside Citizens UK. The school identified this issue in 2017 because of a school trip—the direct example already given this morning. It found that one child in a class was not able to join a school trip because he did not have a passport and was unable to get one processed. The real blockage was the cost.

This was someone who was born in London and sat next to other children in a class in education whom he felt he was the same as, up to that point. He did not know that he was being treated differently simply because of where his parents were born, by a Government who are building ill feeling towards themselves. I have some concerns about where that ill feeling and sense of alienation as a direct result of Government policy could lead some children. When I was first selected, the Metropolitan Police raised some security concerns. I think the Government had better bear that in mind when looking at reducing hostility and division. The Bill sadly misses the opportunity to do that.

The school came to the Home Office in 2017 with Citizens UK for a carol service. Again, it was reaching out to all those who say that we are a Christian country with a Christian heritage. The school was doing that from its Christian standpoint, seeking a Christian response to the concern that it had identified. It had widespread media coverage. In 2018 it was on “The One Show”—which I am sure you are an avid viewer of, Sir Roger—and on Channel 4, when one of the parents talked about their experience of borrowing. For those who do not have the money up front for this process, where to access funds can become very problematic. In Southwark, we are fortunate to have a credit union that has 33,000 members, I think, which is massive for a credit union. The population of Southwark is 300,000, so that is a very large number. Where those unaware of mutual credit unions go for financial support can be more risky and much more expensive in the longer term.

Citizens UK has met Home Office officials, had huge petitions and 1,500 people gathered at St George’s cathedral, in my constituency. The organisation has been campaigning avidly ever since. In April 2019, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration published a report that included recommendations suggesting that the fee waiver system for children be expanded. Citizens UK was pleased with that and was part of the campaign that saw the freedom of information request reveal that 900 stateless children pay the application fee every year. That puts some of these figures into a human context.

In August 2019, the group were back in The Times and on Sky News. Their experiences contributed to legal cases and in December 2020 the High Court ruled that the child citizen fee was unlawful, after a legal challenge by the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens. In February, the Court of Appeal upheld that ruling. At the time, the Government suggested there would be a review, but in February the Home Office said:

“Citizenship registration fees are charged as part of a wider fees approach designed to reduce the burden on UK taxpayers. The Home Office acknowledges the court’s ruling and will review child registration fees in due course.”

We had that commitment in February, but we have a Bill before us in October. Can the Minister clarify how that review has contributed to a Bill that does not address the fundamental problem? If the Government continue with this, they will fall foul of further legal decisions and there will be costs imposed.

At a Westminster Hall debate in March, the then Immigration Minister said:

“Following the Law Commission report on simplification of the immigration rules in 2020, the Home Office is in the process of looking to simplify the immigration rules. As part of that, we are looking at reviewing the rules on settlement and when people qualify for it…We are currently carrying out a section 55 assessment to inform a review of the fee.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 467WH.]

It is disappointing because, if we fast-forward to October, we have a Bill before us that does not do what the Government said they would be doing earlier this year.

When the Minister speaks, I hope he will be able to clarify those specific issues, because this is a significant missed opportunity. We have heard about the human cost, but sometimes we are shy about talking about the cost to Government. If the Government continue to ignore the court ruling, there will be costs to Government of getting this wrong. It would be blasé of the Government to ignore those costs.

Those delays have a long-term economic cost. Coming back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, there is an issue about full cost recovery for accessing a passport, for example for British-born people in these circumstances who want to go to a British university. I have had examples in my constituency where people have been asked to prove they are British citizens, so that they do not have to pay international fees to study at British universities, and they have to pay all the citizenship fees. Would there be support for the Minister to undertake a review of whether there is an impact on British universities? They have seen a drop in international students and need more students to come through. Do the citizenship fees deter some people from going to university?

[Mr Goodwill]

Or indeed joining the British Army. I had a constituent whose mother was German and was married to a British citizen, who was in the British Army in Germany at the time. My constituent apparently could not join the British Army. He had to go through the process and pay the citizenship fees to join the British Army.

[Neil Coyle]

Some people are fortunate enough to find sponsors for these processes, but fundamentally that still leaves the problem in place. The Government said they would review this. Where are they with that? The point I want to make is this: someone who goes to university is more likely to secure a higher income and pay more taxes in the long term, so, if this issue is a deterrent to some people going to university, which I believe it has been in some constituency cases, failure to address the problem will have a long-term economic hit on UK plc.

My final point is on the lived reality of people in these circumstances. They often have no recourse to public funds conditions imposed as well, and the restrictions and limitations of that are devastating. Sadly, I have multiple examples from my constituency.

Mr Musari came to see me in 2015, when I was first elected. He was working in the private sector and renting in the private sector, when he suddenly had a no recourse to public funds condition imposed on him. His wife was pregnant with their third child, Mofe, at the time, so she had stopped working in order to give birth—you cannot really do both at once. The impact of the no recourse to public funds condition was that he was in the process of being evicted, because he was not able to pay his rent, because he could not access benefits and continued support. He became reliant on a church group for accommodation.

He told a group in my constituency—he got up and told this story publicly—that on Christmas day, when he was living through that terrible experience, he woke up in that emergency philanthropic accommodation, in one room with his wife and their three children. They had no private kitchen use. There was no Christmas dinner. Because of their financial circumstances, there were no Christmas presents for the children. He said that that day he felt that Government policies meant that if he took his own life, his children would get more support. He told that story publicly to outline the human impact on him.

His family, of course, ended up becoming reliant on emergency social services support from Southwark Council. That is a massive cost to a council—a colossal cost. London councils are spending £53 million a year on emergency social services for children subject to no recourse to public funds conditions, because the Home Office has imposed that process on them. That is the process we have before us today. It is a massive economic cost. Councils of every political hue are up in arms at how they are being forced to spend money through their noses on emergency services rather than on more affordable, long-term, permanent accommodation. Emergency accommodation provided through social services is the most expensive—more expensive than sending someone to prison or detaining someone in hospital. It is a ridiculously expensive system, but a deliberate choice. The Bill is an opportunity to address those issues, and I fear that it will impose new, and more, costs.

The equality impact assessment says that the Government plan to drop no recourse to public funds conditions for some of those affected by the legislation. I hope the Minister will say more about that. I hope he will agree to do what the Prime Minister has asked, which is to publish the figures on all those subject to no recourse to public funds conditions. I hope he will tell us whether he will agree to a review of the whole system to help people like Mr Musari and all those affected as we go forward.

[The Chair]

The hon. Gentleman has been entirely in order throughout his remarks. He has quoted from a number of documents. Would he please make sure that paper copies—or electronic copies, preferably—are made available for Hansard? Thank you.

[Bambos Charalambous]

I will be brief. I entirely support amendment 8 and the associated amendments on fees. The starting point is rectifying the injustice that has been done, and fees should not be a barrier to rectifying that injustice. We support the waiver of fees in those cases, because there has clearly been an anomaly that has disproportionately affected the people in this case. Fees should never be used as a barrier and they will clearly be a barrier in this instance, and that is why we support amendment 8 and the associated amendments in the group. If the intention is to make it easier for people to acquire citizenship, we want to remove barriers, not add them. That is what the amendment would do and that is why we support it.

There has been discussion about the cost of the administration of fees. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark has made the point that the Government are meant to be carrying out a review following legal challenges. I hope that we see the fruits of that review before the Bill goes through its parliamentary stages, so that we can have greater certainty. I am sure the Minister will clarify that. We also need to make sure that awareness is raised about the access to rights to citizenship and the impact that the fees will have. For those reasons, we commend the amendments.

11:00

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Glasgow North East for tabling amendments 8 to 12 and new clause 16, which provides the Committee with the opportunity to consider fees charged in respect of applications for British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship.

Before I address the specific points in the proposed new measures, I want to provide some background information. Application fees for immigration and nationality applications have been charged for a number of years under powers set out under clause 68 of the Immigration Act 2014, and they play a vital role in our country’s ability to run a sustainable system, reducing the burden on taxpayers. Sitting beneath the 2014 Act are fees orders and fees regulations, which are scrutinised by both Houses before they come into effect; that is an important point. That ensures that there are checks and balances within the system and maintains the coherence of the fees framework. If we were to remove those fees during the passage of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark suggests, it would undermine the existing legal framework without proper consideration of the sustainability and fairness to the UK taxpayer.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Tom Pursglove]

I will, although I know that you wanted us to make good progress, Sir Roger.

[Neil Coyle]

I want to comment on the point about the burden on taxpayers. First, there is a very significant profit margin—86% profit for some of the processes of the Home Office—so there is no burden there. Secondly, it is quite offensive language to those that are living, working and paying tax here to say that they are a burden, even though they are already contributing economically through national insurance and tax contributions. I find the language unhealthy.

[The Chair]

Order. The Minister has indicated that we want to make progress, and that is true, but the Minister must not feel under any pressure not to respond to points that have been raised. This is a very important part of the Bill, so please, as a new Minister, feel able to take your time if you need to do so.

[Tom Pursglove]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I appreciate that. I also appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s strength of feeling on this matter. I was Parliamentary Private Secretary, several years ago, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby who was Immigration Minister, and I learned a lot from him. He got to the nub of the issue of fees. The truth is that there is a level of fee that is set. There is constant parliamentary scrutiny of those fees, as I have described. There is a level of cost associated with that. Any fee level that is incurred over and above that is actually invested into the wider nationality and borders system and helps to pay for the services that are provided.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Minister refers to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. That was a challenge to give a commitment that fees should not be set at a level that does other than reflect cost. I hope the Minister will take advantage of that opportunity. As he is beginning to develop his argument, he is suggesting that fees are set at a higher level in order to reinvest in the Home Office. That is what other people have described and The Times reported in 2019 as profit of quite significant proportion.

[Tom Pursglove]

I will gladly take away the Committee’s feedback on fees. As I have said, fees are kept under constant review and are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I have no doubt that members of the Committee, and indeed Members across the House, will want to scrutinise any fees orders and fees regulations that are brought forward, express views on them and, as they see fit, either support them or take issue with them.

To return to the focus of the amendments and the clause, removing these fees during the passage of the Bill would undermine the existing legal framework without proper consideration of sustainability and fairness for the UK taxpayer. It would also reduce clarity in the fees structure by creating an alternative mechanism for controlling fees.

Beginning with amendments 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, the aim of which is to limit the Secretary of State’s power to charge a fee for applying for British overseas territories citizenship, I can reassure the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that I am sympathetic to the view that a fee should not be charged in cases where a person missed out on becoming a British citizen automatically due to historical anomalies. The provisions in the Bill are about righting historical wrongs, and I can give the Committee my assurance that we will look carefully at where fees should be waived via the fees regulations. However, as I have outlined, that is not a matter for this Bill and it should be remedied through secondary legislation, in line with other changes to immigration and nationality fees.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My understanding, from the briefing I was given at the weekend, is that in July the Home Office sent a letter to nationality experts stating that the intention was not to charge a fee, but the Minister seems to be saying something different; that there will be fee waivers, rather than no fees at all. We are talking about historical injustices here, so can he be a little more clear? Is the intention not to charge a fee for the applications to which amendments 8 to 11 refer?

[Tom Pursglove]

The hon. Member is always on point in asking pertinent questions. I reiterate the point that the Home Office tends not to charge fees in instances where unfairness or injustice have occurred, and it remains our intention to continue to adopt that approach in relation to the provisions that we are enacting through the Bill. I hope that gives him the reassurance he is seeking.

[Neil Coyle]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Yesterday we saw Parliament at its finest, and I genuinely think that he is a decent man, but what he is saying today is not what was indicated previously and it does not address what the Court of Appeal has required the Home Office to do. If he is saying that there will be secondary legislation at some point, when is it coming, because we have an opportunity here to address the issue? The Court of Appeal found that the Home Office had failed to assess the best interests of children in setting the fee. To fail to do so again in this legislation will have only one outcome, which is the Government being back in court.

Also, I forgot to mention the case that I was speaking about earlier, so for reference it is R (The Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens) v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

[Tom Pursglove]

I thank the hon. Member for that further intervention. Let me just set out the position on the point about child citizenship fees that he raises. I understand the concerns expressed about child citizenship fees. However, this is currently subject to legal challenge in the Supreme Court and the position will be reviewed after the judgments have been received.

[Neil Coyle]

So when the Government said in February that the issue was being reviewed, was it not being reviewed then? It is extraordinary that many months down the line the Minister is telling us that there will be a review only if they lose the case in the Supreme Court, which will incur further costs of millions of pounds for the taxpayer simply to go through the legal process.

[Tom Pursglove]

The hon. Member would be surprised if we did not want to review the situation and take into account fully the judgment of the Supreme Court in due course. I think that it is entirely proper that we take a view on this and that the situation should be reviewed in the light of any judicial ruling handed down. This exchange has been very useful, as it has allowed me to address many of the points that I would have picked up at the end of my remarks.

I turn now to subsection (1) of new clause 16, the aim of which is to limit the Secretary of State’s power to charge a fee for applying for British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship to the cost to the Secretary of State of processing the application. As I have already outlined, imposing such a requirement would cut across the funding and coherence of the whole system and is not a matter for the Bill.

Subsection (2) would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee to register as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen if the child is being looked after by a local authority. It is important to remember that any child, irrespective of nationality, who is looked after by their local authority can apply for both limited and indefinite leave to remain without being required to pay application fees.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister is being generous with his time, but I regret that the Home Office appears to have dusted down the same old briefing and he is making the same points that have been made before. He cannot possibly argue that limited leave is some sort of alternative to British citizenship. None of us would accept that; why should these kids?

[Tom Pursglove]

We would argue that the provision ensures no child in local authority care is unable to access leave. We remain of the view that citizenship is not necessary for any individual to work, live, study or access services within the UK. Subsection (3) would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen that the child or the child’s parent, guardian or carer is unable to afford. That raises similar points to subsection (1) in that imposing such a requirement would cut across the funding and coherence of the whole system and is not a matter for the Bill. Subsection (4) would require the Secretary of State to take steps to raise awareness of rights under the British Nationality Act 1981.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I have a quick question on the fee waiver. Why is registration for citizenship just about the only thing where there is no fee waiver scheme at all? There is a fee waiver sometimes for the 10-year route to settlement—as ludicrous a system as that is. Why is there no fee waiver system at all even for folk who cannot remotely afford that?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am conscious that I want to get through my remarks on this. I will write to the hon. Member on that point.

[Neil Coyle]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Perhaps he will be able to tell us how many applications for a fee waiver were denied by the Home Office in each of the last few years, or perhaps he could furnish us with that detail in another way. My understanding is that it is about 90%.

[Tom Pursglove]

Again, I do not have the figure to hand, but I will happily take that away and see if I can provide him with a written answer on that point. Information about becoming a British citizen is made available in published guidance on gov.uk and we are committed to ensuring information of this nature is fully accessible for all. I am conscious that we have had quite an extensive debate around fees in general, but I hope what I have said around the provisions in the Bill and the Government’s intentions for handling fees in relation to the nationality measures we are seeking to enact gives comfort to the Committee, and that the hon. Members will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to all Members for taking part and the Minister for his response. There have been two separate issues. First, on the new registration provision in the Bill, he has provided some assurance that because it is correcting historic injustices the broad intention will be hopefully to avoid a fee. We will hold the Government to that and watch very carefully.

I hear what the Minister says about the fact there is a system of statutory instruments being laid—we all come here and say our piece and then the Government sets a fee pretty much regardless. In theory, that is fine. However, the lesson we learned about the citizenship registration of kids is that in 1981 the then Government and Parliament as a whole made it absolutely clear that profits should not be made on that registration, and that was fine for 20 or 25 years. But then along came successive Governments that decided to ramp it up.

On a principle as fundamental as this, I still think there is a strong case for putting it in the Bill. If a new Government want to change the approach in the future, they can do so, but they will first have to introduce primary legislation to do that. I do insist on amendment 8. I will insist even more strongly on new clause 16.

11:19

I am absolutely for having debates on what fees should be set for tourist visas, working visas or student visas. I accept that it is legitimate to say that in a sense it is almost a commodity, because of the benefit that people are getting. It is not illegitimate to say that we will charge more than it costs us to process such applications, and to use some of that money for other Home Office functions. We can have a debate about precisely where we should set those fees. I agree that we have set them too high, as has been indicated, but we are talking now about something fundamentally different. It is not a student visa or a work visa; this is somebody’s British citizenship. It is not a commodity or a service, as has been mentioned. It is a fundamental part of their identity.

I do not know how many hon. Members have kids, but if the Home Office said to them, “Because we are giving your kids British citizenship, we expect you to pay us 1,000 quid, and we are going to use some of that money to do other stuff as well,” they would be outraged. They should be outraged that the Home Office is doing this. It is a different kettle of fish, and I hope the Minister will take that away and push back with officials.

[Tom Pursglove]

The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about fee waivers in relation to nationality, and I have just reflected on that point. My understanding is that, for most people, nationality is a choice and is not needed specifically to live in the UK. That is why we do not tend to offer fee waivers, typically, unless it is to correct a historical injustice. I just wanted to make that point clear.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful, but that is an argument that the Home Office makes every time we have this debate. We have had Westminster Hall debates and so forth, and it is an awful point. This is the point that I have just been making. Imagine if I were to say to the Minister that we are taking British citizenship away from him and that he could get indefinite leave to remain or apply for five years’ leave to remain or two and a half years’ leave to remain. The long route to settlement involves two and a half years, two and a half years, two and a half years and two and a half years. After 10 years, thousands of pounds and all sorts of uncertainty, he would get settlement, but even that is not citizenship. We would laugh at anyone’s suggestion that we would swap our British citizenship for that. That is not a remotely reasonable justification for not having a fee waiver.

It is the Home Office’s official position that British citizenship is somehow equivalent to the long route to settlement. The long route to settlement is a disgrace, but that is another issue. For goodness’ sake, we are talking about something that I would think Conservative and Unionist politicians would think fundamental. A kid’s citizenship is not a commodity or a service. Leave to remain is not an alternative, so that is not an excuse for not having a fee waiver or for having a fee for kids who are in care.

The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby made plenty of points about the importance of being able to subsidise other parts of the system, and I get that for other reasons, but not for this. The figures show that the Home Office is making a huge profit. Making that profit on visa applications means that tens of thousands of kids who should be British citizens are out there struggling to secure leave to remain, with thousands of pounds of fees. They are being denied access and their rights, stability and security. I ask the Minister to take the issue away and think about it again. I also ask Government Members to think about this issue, because it is not party political. As say, I have had lots of support from Conservative MPs in the past. Let us do justice by these kids. In effect, they are British citizens. Let us make them legally British citizens as well.

As I say, new clause 16 is modest. It is not asking for no fees at all; it is asking for no more than cost price. It is asking for a fee waiver, and it is asking to ensure that people have all these rights. I will definitely press amendment 8, and new clause 16, when we reach it, to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 2

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 8

---

Conservative: 8

[The Chair]

Having listened very carefully to the debate this morning, I am of the view that the matters arising from clause 1 have been thoroughly debated. I therefore do not propose to engage in any stand part debate.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Historical inability of unmarried fathers to transmit citizenship

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

There is no need to have a stand part debate on clause 2. There are no amendments to clause 2, but I do not wish to curtail debate if hon. Members have anything they wish to say.

[Bambos Charalambous]

I have some remarks, which I will try and keep as brief as possible. As outlined in the Committee, opening clauses 1 to 5 seek to close the important loopholes in British nationality law. As we have already heard, British nationality law has discriminated against women and that will be corrected by clause 1 and the Opposition amendments. Clause 2 deals with children born out of wedlock, who have been prevented from deriving nationality from a British father if unmarried. That is another historical injustice and I am glad it is being considered in the Bill.

As Committee members know, before 1 July 2006, children born to British unmarried fathers could not acquire British nationality through their father. Registration provisions have since been introduced to rectify that issue for the children of British citizens through sections 4E and 4I of the British Nationality Act 1981, but that was not changed for children of British overseas territory citizens. Let us pause for a moment to reflect on the impact of the inconsistency: a child has no control over its parents’ choices, yet British overseas territories children, now adults, have been discriminated against because their parents were unmarried. Due to a loophole in British nationality law, those children would not automatically acquire British overseas territory citizenship as the law failed to provide unmarried fathers with the ability to transmit citizenship. Therefore, through no fault of their own and without knowing why, that group of British overseas territories children did not acquire rights as British overseas territories citizens—rights they deserved and should have been entitled to, including, for example, holding a British passport or gaining consular assistance from the UK.

As we know, injustices that relate to nationality and citizenship span generations, and it is right the Government seek through clause 2 to correct the historical inability of unmarried fathers to transmit citizenship. The clause will insert new sections 17B and 17G to the British Nationality Act to provide for registration as British overseas territories citizens for persons born before 1 July 2006 to British overseas territories citizen fathers, where the parents were unmarried at the time of their birth. The provisions provide an entitlement to be registered for those who would have become British overseas territories citizens automatically had their parents been married at the time of their birth and for those who would currently have an entitlement to registration were it not for the fact that their parents were not married at the time of their birth. As the clause creates a registration route for the adult children of unmarried British overseas territories citizen fathers to acquire British overseas territories citizenship, the Opposition welcome and support clause 2. It shows that the adults who have slipped through the cracks in UK nationality law over many years are no longer punished and, instead, are finally placed on an equal footing with mainland UK children born under the same circumstances.

[Tom Pursglove]

Following clause 1, this clause also seeks to rectify a historical anomaly in British nationality law for people who would have become British overseas territories citizens. The purpose of the clause is to insert a new registration provision for people who, first, would have become BOTCs automatically had their parents been married and, secondly, would currently have an entitlement to registration as a BOTC but for the fact that their parents are not married. That has long been awaited. We are aware of people who would have become British had their parents been married and see citizenship as their birthright.

11:25

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Building Safety Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Philip Davies, †Peter Dowd, Clive Efford, Mrs Maria Miller

† Amesbury, Mike (Weaver Vale) (Lab)

† Bailey, Shaun (West Bromwich West) (Con)

† Baillie, Siobhan (Stroud) (Con)

† Byrne, Ian (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)

† Cadbury, Ruth (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)

† Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con)

† Clarke-Smith, Brendan (Bassetlaw) (Con)

† Cooper, Daisy (St Albans) (LD)

† Hopkins, Rachel (Luton South) (Lab)

† Hughes, Eddie (Walsall North) (Con)

† Logan, Mark (Bolton North East) (Con)

† Mann, Scott (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

† Osborne, Kate (Jarrow) (Lab)

† Pincher, Christopher (Tamworth) (Con)

† Rimmer, Ms Marie (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)

† Saxby, Selaine (North Devon) (Con)

† Young, Jacob (Redcar) (Con)

Yohanna Sallberg, Adam Mellows-Facer, Abi Samuels, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 19 October 2021

(Morning)

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

Building Safety Bill

Clause 59

Meaning of “building safety risk”

09:25

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 60, 61 and 58 stand part.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)]

Before I address this group, I would like to say that since this Committee last met we have suffered the very sad loss of two much loved and much respected colleagues, so I want to put on the record my condolences to their families and close friends, who are trying to come to terms with their tragic loss.

Following the pause in proceedings yesterday, the business of the House continues and we must now turn our minds to saving the lives of other people.

Clause 58 serves as an overview of part 4 of the Bill, which contains provisions for the management of building safety risks in higher-risk buildings. Part 4 is concerned with occupied buildings. It defines a building safety risk and it defines and places duties on the accountable person in relation to risks in their building, including duties regarding resident engagement.

Clause 59 defines “building safety risk” for the purposes of the Bill as a risk to the safety of people in or about a building due to the spread of fire or structural failure. The accountable person for an occupied higher-risk building must consider the spread of fire, structural failure and anything which may trigger them, through the safety case approach.

The Government’s approach embraces the independent review’s recommendations that the new, more stringent regulatory regime should focus on fire and structural safety. Our consultation referenced fire and structural safety, and we have engaged stakeholders on what the appropriate building safety risks should be. That engagement has supported that our approach covers the appropriate risks.

The clause also creates a power for the Secretary of State to add other building safety risks in the future, should evidence come to light that that is necessary. The Building Safety Regulator will oversee building safety and through that gain knowledge about the built environment. Therefore, it is only right that it must provide a recommendation or advice, or be consulted, before the power to specify new building safety risks is used. However, the spread of fire and structural failure cannot be removed in the future. They will and must remain at the heart of the new regulatory regime.

Clause 60 will enable the Building Safety Regulator to recommend that the Secretary of State makes regulations under the power in clause 59(1)(c). It also specifies the conditions that must be met for the regulator to do so. Through its duty to keep the safety of people in and about buildings under review, the regulator will be aware of the risks to and in buildings. It is only right that the regulator should be able to make recommendations based on that knowledge. In making a recommendation to change the definition of building safety risk, the Building Safety Regulator must have regard to the regulatory principles in clause 3, including proportionality.

We are focusing on preventing those rare incidents that have the highest consequences. The conditions that must be met for the regulator to make a recommendation reflect that, including the three-part test for simultaneously adding a new category of higher-risk building and a new building safety risk.

Finally, clause 61 provides that the Building Safety Regulator must provide advice about proposals to make regulations under clause 59(1)(c) to the Secretary of State, if requested. The regulator will be able to provide expert advice and will be a wealth of knowledge on risks such as the aforementioned spread of fire and structural failure. Moreover, it is important for the regime to be flexible and to be able to respond to new risks, if and when they arise. Thus the ability for the Secretary of State to request formal advice when considering altering the definition of building safety risk is an important step in ensuring that the Secretary of State is expertly informed and to keep the regime flexible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 60 and 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

Meaning of “higher-risk building” etc

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 62, page 81, line 37, at end insert—

“(aa) has characteristics relating to function, material used for construction or inaccessibility of emergency routes out of the building as must be defined by the Secretary of State in regulations which make it a high risk to its residents, or”

This amendment would require the Government to define high-risk buildings which are not at least 18 metres or 7 storeys high in regulations.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Mike Amesbury]

It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to follow the Minister, whom I welcome to his place on the Front Bench. I concur with his comments on the tragic events surrounding Sir David Amess and on the loss of James Brokenshire, who served this House and, indeed, the Department well over the years.

The amendment seeks to broaden the definition of risk. During Committee stage, Members and Ministers have heard and reviewed evidence from many stakeholders, including the Construction Industry Council, which has argued that the current definition—which applies to buildings below 18 metres or with fewer than seven storeys—is not a sufficient definition of genuine risk. Indeed, the Fire Brigades Union argues in its written evidence, provided just a few days ago—I am sure that Members have had the opportunity to read it—that the scope is not broad enough.

For example, the fire at a residential care setting in Crewe not very long ago—we have referred to it throughout our deliberations—would not have been covered by the proposed definition because it was below 18 metres and had fewer than seven storeys. Yet the residents who called that building home were undoubtedly at a higher risk than many of us in this Committee Room.

The fire at the Cube student accommodation in Bolton, which has also been referred to throughout this Committee, would not have been covered by this definition, either. Yet in a relatively short period, a significant fire destroyed the building and—there but for the grace of God—nearly cost lives.

Although it is acknowledged that hospitals and care homes are covered by previous clauses, which have been debated, their focus is also on buildings below 18 metres or with fewer than seven storeys. The 18-metre threshold has caused considerable debate, as have comments made by officials in the now renamed Department. I am not at all confident that the Department itself believes that it is an appropriate figure. Indeed, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), said that relying

“on crude height limits…does not reflect the complexity”

of the risk, as many Committee members will know. He concluded that height would need to

“sit alongside a broader range of risk factors”—[Official Report, 20 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 24.]

Finally, given that buildings below the proposed threshold are no longer deemed to be at high risk, I find it rather perplexing that the Government would advertise for and recruit a civil servant on a salary of £77,000 to take charge of the new proposed loans regime to remediate building safety issues on buildings from 11 to 18 metres. If they are not at risk, they are not at risk.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Dowd. I echo the comments made across the Committee about our departed colleagues Mr Brokenshire and Sir David Amess.

I rise to support amendment 12, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale and the hon. Member for St Albans. I reinforce the point that risk to building safety should be defined by actual risk—as assessed by the many experts we have in this country and the systems that we use but should probably improve—and not by some arbitrary cut-off.

I will describe two examples. On building risk, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale mentioned the risk of occupation, which should be covered but from which so many users and so many types of residential building are excluded—a point that I have covered in previous Committee sittings.

In my constituency, we have six 22-storey tower blocks called the Brentford Towers, which are council blocks with a mixture of tenants and leaseholders and were built more than 40 years ago. Not so long ago, a man died in a fire in his flat in one of those blocks. The fire did not spread. There was smoke damage in the communal hallway, which was shared by three other flats, and a lot of the smoke went out of his windows or through the smoke escape hatch on the stairwell.

The fire did not spread upwards, downwards or into the other flats on the man’s floor, because the building was designed with fire safety in mind and had not subsequently been messed around with. The fire doors were all shut and the smoke vent was open. That is what was supposed to happen: it was a tragic death, but sadly the man might have died in any kind of home-based fire. No one else was injured, no other flat was damaged and the cost to the community was minimal.

The other example is a block of flats that I have mentioned before, Richmond House in Worcester Park in south London. It had four storeys, I believe, with just over 30 flats. Once the fire took hold, it took 11 minutes for that building to burn down completely. By the grace of God, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale said, no one died, although some people had smoke injuries.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. On a number of occasions during the passage of the Fire Safety Act 2021 and this Bill, we have heard from the Government that the number of fires has gone down, but does the hon. Member agree that it is important that we remember the evidence we have heard from a number of organisations that fires are now spreading a lot faster and that there is therefore a much greater danger when fires do break out?

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Member is absolutely right: we need to look at the evidence from actual fires. Many of us have had examples in our own constituency; the one that I mentioned was not in mine, but there was a fire in a block of flats in my constituency as a result of flammable cladding that had not yet been removed. Luckily, the fire brigade got there in time, before serious damage, injury or death occurred.

I conclude by referring to so much high-quality, professional expertise that has submitted evidence to the Committee and said that the risks should be based on actual risk and not on an arbitrary cut-off by height or number of storeys.

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank hon. Members for raising the important question of the definitions for high-risk building safety and safety in buildings of under 18 metres and a height of seven storeys. I am afraid the Government will not be able to accept the amendment.

We recognise that the height and the use of a building are not the only factors that affect the level of risk found in each building. However, they are commonly used factors in determining the level of risk. We consider that other factors, including the materials used for construction, the presence of fire protection measures and the distance to emergency exits, could be used to define a high-risk building, but we concluded that it would be inappropriate to base the regime on factors like that because we were concerned that there would be unintended consequences. For example, when considering the materials used in construction, a large number of materials can be found in various quantities in various combinations. A material or product may be safe on one building owing to its placement, use and combination with other materials yet unsafe on another. Apart from particular circumstances such as the ban on combustible materials in and on external walls of certain buildings, a blanket approach to specific materials would therefore be inappropriate.

As for the accessibility of emergency routes, our assessment is that this would be a subjective factor. Different people may have different opinions about whether a building has sufficiently accessible emergency routes and therefore whether the building is or is not a high-risk building. This would not provide the clarity residents, industry and the regulator need.

We recognise that it is important that the risk of a fire occurring is low in any building. We must be proportionate in the application of the new regulatory regime.

[Mike Amesbury]

The FBU and Leeds University have carried out recent research that for residents in buildings of 11 metres-plus the risk of fire is somewhat higher. The current scope of the Bill suggests that it captures about 13,000 buildings, but if the definition were broadened to buildings of 11 metres-plus, it would be about 100,000. There has been no effective risk assessment of the risk in individual buildings, and people who reside in them may have disabilities, for example. They would be at significantly higher risk. There are also care homes, hospitals, prisons and educational institutions, so more effective and concerted effort needs to be made by Government and Departments to assess risk properly.

[Eddie Hughes]

The stakeholders we have consulted—Dame Judith Hackitt, the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Building Research Establishment—all think we have taken a proportionate approach in setting the level at 18 metres. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned prisons, but we should not be distracted by other things. My understanding is that the fires that there have been in prisons in recent times have not involved a spread from the source location. Clearly, risk safety means that there is a limited amount of combustible materials in cells. I understand the point that he is making and we are sensitive to it. We do not in any way avoid the fact that the Bill might need to evolve at some point in the future. More risks may become apparent and we will talk again when we come to later clauses about how the Bill may develop to accommodate that.

The definition of high-risk building for the occupation regime that is outlined in part 7 was determined on the basis that the risk to multiple households is greater when fire spreads in buildings of at least 18 metres. That followed extensive consultation, including a stakeholder listening exercise following the publication of the independent review by Dame Judith Hackitt, stakeholder engagement and our public consultation on building a safer future. Therefore, we think the current definition is correct, proportionate and deliverable for the new regulator. The amendment intends to create a power that duplicates clause 62(5), which already contains a power to alter the definition of higher risk building.

09:45

Clause 144(3) states:

“Regulations may describe a building by reference to its height, size, design, use, purpose or any other characteristic.”

I confirm that this subsection allows regulations to be made to define higher-risk building use, using the characteristics included in the amendment, if the Government later consider it appropriate.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

What material factors would be considered appropriate to reconsider this situation? What would be necessary to re-examine or develop this further? Are the Government waiting for incidents to happen? Risk is supposed to be based on hazards and the likelihood of them materialising. Risk assessments are supposed to avoid materialisation, but that is not how the Bill is drafted.

[Eddie Hughes]

I understand the passion with which the hon. Lady makes her case, but I simply do not accept that point. We have been highly proportionate. Dame Judith Hackitt is well respected in this field. We have taken her advice and that of the Building Research Establishment—experts in the field—into consideration. The Building Safety Regulator will be responsible, through the Health and Safety Executive, for monitoring ongoing situations and therefore will be well placed to make recommendations to the Secretary of State should new evidence come to light. We are alive to the issue, and the Bill responds to it.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The Minister speaks of waiting for evidence to come to light. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston asked whether we have to await an incident involving death or serious injury. Is that the definition of evidence? If not, what is?

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We need to acknowledge how much the building safety sector has changed as a result of Grenfell Tower and of this Bill. People are more attuned to fire safety and the risks and are more engaged in the process of addressing it. I speak following my engagement with social housing providers. I know from the work that we are doing on the social housing White Paper that they are much more engaged. They are listening to their residents and working with them. We are providing an opportunity to ensure that residents’ voices are heard more in the future. With the resident engagement set out in the Bill we will be in a much better informed position to determine safety risks.

I assure Members that the safety of people in buildings under 18 metres high and under seven storeys is of no less importance to the Government. We have a wide programme to strengthen the fire safety regime that includes improving fire safety in all premises regulated by the fire safety order and introducing specific requirements to protect residents’ safety in multi-occupied residential buildings of any height.

I shall not go into the details of clause 134, which takes forward our proposals on fire safety reform, as it is due to be debated at a later sitting of the Committee. However, it is another step in the delivery of our reforms and the Committee will be aware that the Government intend to lay fire safety regulations specific to multi-occupied residential buildings this autumn.

In the light of the work that the Government are doing to protect residents’ safety in multi-occupied residential buildings under 18 metres in height and under seven storeys, and given how the power to amend the definition of higher-risk buildings in clause 62(5) works with clause 143(3), I urge Members to consider withdrawing the amendment.

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, Mr Dowd.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63

Regulations under section 62: procedure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 64 to 67 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 63 sets out that the Secretary of State must consult the Building Safety Regulator, unless advice or a recommendation has already been provided, before making regulations under clause 62. The regulations may supplement clause 62, exempt categories of building from the definition of higher-risk building, and provide definitions or alter the clause, apart from subsections (2) and (5). The regulator will oversee building safety and through that gain knowledge about the built environment. It is therefore only right that it is consulted before the powers in clause 62 are used.

Clause 63 also states that the Secretary of State must consult any other persons they consider appropriate before making regulations under clause 62. As the powers cover a few areas, we do not think it right to specify particular other people to consult. However, we recognise that there may be other appropriate people to consult before regulations are made, so we have included that general duty. The powers in clause 62 should not be used lightly and must be used in a proportionate way. This clause provides one of the checks on that.

Clause 64 provides extra checks. If the Secretary of State proposes to use the powers in clause 62 to add a category of building to the definition of higher-risk buildings, it stipulates that the Secretary of State must have received advice or a recommendation from the Building Safety Regulator, and a cost-benefit analysis must be undertaken and published. The Building Safety Regulator oversees building safety and is therefore in the best position to assess if a category of building should be higher risk. It is vital that the regulator’s advice be obtained if it has not already provided a recommendation if the definition of higher-risk building were to expand. To ensure that we are being proportionate in the measures we place on buildings, a cost-benefit analysis must be carried out. If the definition of higher-risk building were to expand, it is only fair and transparent that the analysis must be published.

Clause 65 provides for the Secretary of State to use regulations to disapply or modify clauses from part 4 of the Bill for a category of higher-risk building. We cannot predict incidents that may occur in the future, nor how the evidence base on risk will evolve. There may be circumstances in future where it would be prudent to include a different category of building within the definition of higher-risk building for the occupation elements for the new regulatory regime. In this case, it may not be appropriate to apply all the clauses within part 4 of the Bill to that category of building—for example, resident engagement duties in a non-residential building. The clause provides for that scenario. Any substantial change to the regime that we have so carefully thought through should be open to comment and scrutiny. That is why the Building Safety Regulator and any other appropriate person must be consulted, and it is why regulations to do that must be approved through the affirmative procedure by both Houses.

Clause 66 specifies when the Building Safety Regulator must make recommendations to the Secretary of State that a category of building should be added to the definition of higher-risk building for the purposes of part 4 of the Bill. Through its function to oversee building safety, the regulator will be aware of the risks to and in buildings, and the regulator should therefore be able to make recommendations based on that knowledge.

Any change to the definition of a higher-risk building must be proportionate. That is why the regulator can recommend adding a category of building to the definition of a higher-risk building only if it believes that a three-part test is met. First, it must believe that the level of building safety risk is greater in the proposed category of building than in buildings in general. Secondly, it must believe that if the building safety risk occurred there is the potential for it to cause a major incident in the proposed category of building. Lastly, it must believe that the occupation parts of the new regulatory regime should apply to the proposed category of building.

To ensure that the process is transparent, if the Secretary of State does not make regulations to put the regulator’s recommendation to add a category of building into effect they must publish an explanation. If the regulator considers that a category of building should no longer be a higher-risk building it must provide a recommendation to the Secretary of State. It would not be appropriate to continue to apply the occupation parts of the new regulatory regime to a category of building that should no longer be a higher-risk building.

Clause 67 provides for the Secretary of State to request advice from the Building Safety Regulator about the definition of a higher-risk building. The regulator will be able to provide expert advice. Therefore, the ability of the Secretary of State to request formal advice when considering altering the definition of a higher-risk building is vital. Any change to the definition of a higher-risk building must be proportionate, which is why the regulator can recommend adding a category of building to the definition of a higher-risk building only if it believes that the three parts of the test that I referenced when discussing clause 66 are met.

Similarly, if the Secretary of State requests advice about whether a category of building should no longer be a higher-risk building the regulator must provide it. To ensure that the process is transparent, if the Secretary of State does not make regulations to put a recommendation made under subclause (3)(a) into effect they must publish an explanation of why not.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for his comments. We have some questions and points of clarity. On clause 63, who would the appropriate stakeholders and consultees be? On clause 64, the notion of a cost-benefit analysis raises important issues. Who bears the cost, and how will that benefit be measured? Could clause 67 include flood risk, for example? An early amendment that we tabled referred to climate change, as we march towards COP26.

[Eddie Hughes]

With regard to who to consult, the question would be: what is the circumstance in which we are seeking information? For the sake of argument, one example given in the explanatory notes is increased wind speeds. If buildings suffered as a result of that, we would need to consult structural engineers. Were it a different issue, we would need to consult a different group of people, so it is helpful for it to be an open category, and for the Building Safety Regulator, and probably the Secretary of State, to understand and determine from whom they would need to seek advice.

On the cost-benefit analysis, I suspect that we will come later in our discussions to who bears the costs in various circumstances. Clearly that will depend on the leasehold arrangements that are in place in that particular building. Given that we have seen changing climate conditions, flood risk is certainly one of the things that could be considered in the future, depending on how weather conditions change in the coming years.

I conclude by saying once again that the powers in clause 62 should not be used lightly. They must be used proportionately, and clause 63 provides one of the key checks on that. Combined with clauses 63 and 65 to 67, and with parliamentary scrutiny, clause 64 ensures that using the powers in clause 62 to expand the definition of a higher-risk building is done appropriately and in a transparent way.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 64 to 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68

Meaning of “occupied” higher-risk building etc

10:00

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 68 defines the meaning of “occupied” and a resident of a higher-risk building. They are key definitions that determine the application of the obligations under the new, more stringent regime provided for in part 4. As the Committee will recall, the definition in clause 62 defines the meaning of a higher-risk building as one that is at least 18 metres in height, has at least seven storeys and contains at least two residential units.

Clause 68 gives details of the meaning of an occupied higher-risk building. It states that if a higher-risk building is to be classified as occupied, residents must actually be living in the building. Specifically there must be residents in more than one residential unit in the building. If there is a building that meets the definition of higher risk but that is not occupied for the time being, it will not be subject to most of the obligations under part 4 such as the registration requirement or production of the safety case. I will discuss that later. However, some of the provisions kick in regardless of occupation. A reference to a resident of a higher-risk building is to a resident of a residential unit. The definition of a residential unit will be discussed at clause 123.

Clause 68 creates a power for the Secretary of State to amend the definition of “occupied” and the resident of a higher-risk building. By way of regulations, the Secretary of State has a power to define the meaning of being the resident of a residential unit. This is to ensure that the scope and definitions can be amended to meet future policy relating to building safety regulation.

[Mike Amesbury]

I have a quick point for the Minister. If one person were resident in a high-risk building of above 18 metres, they would not be covered by the Bill.

[Eddie Hughes]

That is correct. In those circumstances, that could be an individual’s home and we are not in the business of legislating to that extent. The idea of the Bill and proportionality is that it covers properties in multiple occupation.

[Ms Rimmer]

Does that mean that it would not be worth selling?

[The Chair]

Order. The Minister has finished so we will leave it at that.

Question put and agreed to. 

Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 69

Meaning of “Accountable Person” Etc

[Eddie Hughes]

I beg to move Government amendment 41 in clause 69, page 85, line 34, at end insert—

“This subsection is subject to subsection (2C) (special rule for commonhold land).”

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to debate Government amendments 42 to 51 and clause stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

This group of amendments makes provisions on who the accountable person is for higher-risk building when the title to the building is held in commonhold. The commonhold association owns and manages the common parts of the building in accordance with the commonhold community statement framework. Amendment 48 ensures that the Bill is explicit in providing that where the title to the building is held in commonhold, the commonhold association will always be the accountable person for the building. That works to ensure that the building safety risk will be properly managed by providing that an accountable person is both identifiable and, more importantly, responsible when considering that building ownership type.

Amendment 49 aligns the definitions of commonhold land and commonhold associations with the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, thereby maintaining consistency across the interacting pieces of legislation. Amendment 41 makes consequential changes necessitated by amendment 48. Amendments 42 to 46 and amendments 50 and 51 are technical and deal with the definition of an accountable person in relation to higher-risk buildings, where the right to manage has been exercised. Currently, the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 provides that where the right to manage has been exercised by leaseholders, the right to manage company takes on all the management functions for a building under the lease. That includes the repairing obligations for common parts. By virtue of clause 69(1)(b), the Bill provides that a right to manage company will therefore become an accountable person for the higher-risk building. Amendments 42 and 46 ensure that when that is the case, a person who is an accountable person by virtue of clause 69(1) is now expressly excluded if all the remaining obligations in relation to the common parts are subsequently the obligations of the right to manage company.

The amendments clarify where the responsibility for building safety duties sit when the right to manage has been exercised, thereby avoiding any confusion where it may appear that there is more than one accountable person captured by the definition for the same common parts of the building. I point out to the Committee that where repairing obligations are not provided for under a lease, and do not therefore become functions of the right to manage company, persons will still rightly also be captured as an accountable person under clause 69(1)(a) or (b) for their respective parts of the building. That maintains a whole-building approach to building safety management.

Amendment 50 aligns the definition of a right to manage company with the existing definition in the 2002 Act to maintain consistency across the interacting pieces of legislation. Amendments 43, 44 and 45 make consequential changes necessitated by the changes made by amendment 42. Amendment 51 is consequential on the motion to divide clause 69 into two separate clauses. Subsection (3) will now form its own clause entitled “Part of building for which an accountable person is responsible”.

On amendment 47, the Committee will be aware that clause 69(1) defines an accountable person for a higher-risk building as

“a person who holds a legal estate in possession in any…of the common parts”.

However, in some complex leasehold arrangements it may be that the person who has the active repairing obligations for some of the common parts holds a legal estate in the building but does not have the legal estate in possession. Under the current Bill provisions, that would mean that those persons are not currently being captured as accountable persons but they should be, as they have the active repairing obligations for some of the common parts. The amendment addresses that issue by ensuring that where such leasehold arrangements are in effect, the landlord or superior landlord who has the relevant repairing obligations pursuant to a lease for any of the common parts will be accountable persons for those respective parts of the building. In that scenario, the person with the active repairing obligation will therefore be the accountable person instead of the person who holds the legal estate in possession in those common parts under clause 69(1)(a). The amendment gives due consideration to the whole building approach to building safety by ensuring that where a superior landlord or landlord is under a relevant repairing obligation for only some parts of the common parts, both they and the person with the legal estate in possession will be captured as accountable persons for their respective parts of the building.

Turning to the clause itself, the independent review concluded that having a clear and identifiable person with responsibility for managing building safety during occupation and maintenance was clearly necessary. Clause 69 enacts that recommendation, and creates the statutory definition that identifies who the accountable persons for occupied higher-risk buildings under the new building safety regime are. These accountable persons will have legal requirements under the Bill to ensure that fire and structural safety for their parts of the building are being properly managed in accordance with the new building safety regime.

Having clearly identifiable accountable persons is critical to managing buildings safely, enabling residents to feel safe in their homes and enabling the Building Safety Regulator to regulate effectively. The effect of this clause is that accountable persons could therefore be landlords, freeholders, right to manage companies, management companies or commonhold associations that are in charge of repairing the common parts of a building. The clause defines common parts to include the structure, exterior and any other part of the building provided for the common use of the residents.

Clause 69 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend the definitions of accountable persons, to ensure that the new regime is adaptable and fit for purpose for many years to come. To provide further clarity to accountable persons about the areas that fall under their remit for the purposes of fulfilling their duties, the clause allows the use of regulations to define the parts of a building accountable persons are responsible for. The Government recognise that the success of the enhanced building safety regime rests with ensuring that it is clear where responsibility lies, so that building safety obligations can be adequately complied with.

[Mike Amesbury]

Many of these amendments are technical tidying-up exercises, looking at the legislation coming through the other place at the moment on leasehold, ground rents and commonhold. In principle, these measures support that direction of travel on commonhold, but to get the new regime right, to stop the ping-pong of people passing the buck that we are all familiar with, there is still more work to be done on the accountable person—the principal accountable person. I noted that on, I think, Thursday 14 October, 200 factsheets were published by the Department. I know every Member on this Committee will have read them in great detail over the past few weeks.

The amendment tries to add some clarity, but again it relies on secondary legislation. The Minister mentioned the right to manage and commonhold, the relationship with the building owners and the demarcation of who will be the principal accountable person versus the accountable person. How will the disputes that will undoubtedly arise be resolved?

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. My understanding is that, if there is contention over who is responsible, the principal accountable person will first and foremost be the person responsible for the exterior of the building. That gives us an easily defined headline position, but, as he rightly points out, there is incredible complexity in English law when it comes to property ownership. It is good that the opportunity arises within the Bill to allow flexibility for the Secretary of State to redefine the accountable person, should it transpire that for some reason there is an entity that has escaped the clutches of this clause. Hopefully we have covered everybody now, given the complex amendments we have tabled; but, should the need arise in future, the Secretary of State has that flexibility.

Amendment 41 agreed to.

Amendments made: 42, in clause 69, page 85, line 35, after “person” insert

“(‘the estate owner’) who holds a legal estate in possession in the common parts of a higher-risk building or any part of them (‘the relevant common parts’)”.

This amendment and Amendment 46 provide that a person within subsection (1)(a) is not an accountable person if their repairing obligations in relation to the relevant common parts are obligations of a right to manage company.

Amendment 43, in clause 69, page 85, line 35, leave out “a higher-risk” and insert “the”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 42.

Amendment 44, in clause 69, page 85, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 42.

Amendment 45, in clause 69, page 86, line 1, leave out “person” and insert “estate owner”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 42.

Amendment 46, in clause 69, page 86, line 4, at end insert “, or

(c) all repairing obligations relating to the relevant common parts which would otherwise be obligations of the estate owner are functions of an RTM company.”

This amendment and Amendment 42 provide that a person within subsection (1)(a) is not an accountable person if their repairing obligations in relation to the relevant common parts are obligations of a right to manage company.

Amendment 47, in clause 69, page 86, line 4, at end insert—

“(2A) Subsection (2B) applies where—

(a) under a lease, a person (‘the estate owner’) holds a legal estate in possession in the common parts of a higher-risk building or any part of them (‘the relevant common parts’), and

(b) a landlord under the lease is under a relevant repairing obligation in relation to any of the relevant common parts.

(2B) For the purposes of this section and section 70—

(a) the legal estate in possession in so much of the relevant common parts as are within subsection (2A)(b) is treated as held by the landlord (instead of the estate owner), and

(b) if (and so far as) the landlord’s actual legal estate in those common parts is held under a lease, the legal estate in possession mentioned in paragraph (a) is treated as held under that lease (and, accordingly, subsection (2A) and this subsection may apply in relation to it).”

This amendment provides that where, for example, a landlord of a person within subsection (1)(a) has covenanted to keep the common parts held by the person in repair, the landlord is the accountable person (instead of the person).

Amendment 48, in clause 69, page 86, line 4, at end insert—

“(2C) Where a higher-risk building is on commonhold land, the commonhold association is the accountable person for the building for the purposes of this Part.”

This amendment provides that where title to a higher-risk building is held in commonhold, the commonhold association is the accountable person for the building.

Amendment 49, in clause 69, page 86, line 15, at end insert—

“‘commonhold association’ and ‘commonhold land’ have the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (see sections 34 and 1 respectively);”.

This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 48, defines “commonhold association” and “commonhold land” for the purposes of this clause.

Amendment 50, in clause 69, page 86, line 21, at end insert—

“‘RTM company’ has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (right to manage).”

This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 46, defines “RTM company” for the purposes of this clause.

Amendment 51, in clause 69, page 86, line 23, leave out “subsection (3) or”. —(Eddie Hughes.)

This amendment is consequential on the motion to divide this clause into two clauses.

10:15

[Eddie Hughes]

I beg to move,

That Clause No. 69 be divided into two clauses, the first (Meaning of “accountable person”) consisting of subsections (1) to (2C) and (4) and (5) and the second (Part of building for which an accountable person is responsible) consisting of subsection (3).

The motion, which would divide amended clause 69, moves the power under subsection (3) into a separate clause, creating two distinct clauses. That is so that all the clauses relating to the identity of the accountable person are in one place, and the ability to make regulations to help identify the parts of the building for which the accountable person is responsible can be in the other.

Question put and agreed to.

[The Chair]

As a result of the Committee’s decision to divide clause 69 into two clauses, I now propose, in accordance with the precedent, to ask the Committee to come to a formal decision separately on the two clauses created. For the purpose of putting these questions, I think it will be convenient to the Committee to describe the two clauses as clause 69A and 69B, and to debate them together. When the Bill is reprinted after the conclusion of the Committee stage, these clauses and the remaining clauses of the Bill will be renumbered accordingly.

Question proposed, That clause 69A, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 69B stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

We have already debated clause 69 in detail at an earlier stage. Therefore, I will briefly touch on the core functions of clause 69A and clause 69B. Clause 69A creates the statutory definition that identifies who are the accountable persons for occupied higher-risk buildings under the new building safety regime. Clause 69B will allow the use of regulations to define the parts of a building that accountable persons are responsible for.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 69A, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69B ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70

Meaning of “principal accountable person”

[Eddie Hughes]

I beg to move Government amendment 52, in clause 70, page 86, line 29, at end insert “, or

(ii) is within section 69(1)(b) because of a relevant repairing obligation (within the meaning of that section) in relation to the relevant parts of the structure and exterior of the building.”

This amendment caters for cases where accountable persons within clause 69(1)(b) have repairing obligations in relation to the structure and exterior of the building.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 53.

Clause 70 stand part.

Government amendments 54 and 55.

Clause 71 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

Amendments 52 and 53 amend clause 70. The Committee will know that clause 70(1)(b) sets out that the principal accountable person for a higher-risk building where there are multiple accountable persons is the one

“who holds a legal estate in possession in the relevant parts of the structure and exterior of the building”.

That is a more eloquent answer to the question put earlier by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. However, there is a scenario where an entity holds a legal estate in possession in the relevant parts of the structure and exterior of the building but is not subsequently captured as an accountable person under clause 69. In those circumstances, the provisions as drafted would not capture a principal accountable person for the building. Specifically, this occurs when accountable persons within clause 69(1)(b) have the relevant repairing obligations in relation to the structure and exterior of the building, but do not hold the legal estate in possession to these common parts of the building.

Amendment 52 is technical and caters for this issue by ensuring that the accountable person who has the repairing obligations for the structure and exterior by virtue of clause 69(1)(b) can become the principal accountable person. It also aligns with amendments made to clause 69, which are aimed at ensuring that the accountable person is the person who has an active repairing obligation through their legal estate in possession or, where they do not have a legal estate in possession, has an active repairing obligation pursuant to a lease. Amendment 53 makes a consequential change necessitated by the changes made through amendment 52.

Amendments 54 and 55 amend clause 71, which sets out that an interested party may apply to the tribunal for a determination on who the accountable persons for the building are, who the principal accountable person is, or the parts of the building for which an accountable person is responsible. Under the current provisions, an interested party is either the regulator or a person who holds a legal estate in any part of the building. This does not therefore allow an accountable person who has an active repairing obligation, but does not hold a legal estate, to apply to the first-tier tribunal for a determination.

Amendment 55 addresses the issue by capturing a person who is under a repairing obligation to the common parts of a building to now be classified as an interested party for the purposes of clause 71, enabling them also to make an application for a determination to the first-tier tribunal. This works to effectively align clause 69 with clause 71.

Amendment 55 also limits applications that can be made to the first-tier tribunal from a person with just a legal estate in the building to a person holding a legal estate in the common parts of the building. This ensures that the court’s resources can be dedicated to resolving complex issues from those that are, or may be, directly responsible for managing building safety for the building. Amendment 54 makes a consequential change as a result of an amendment made to clause 70.

I will now move on to the clauses themselves, beginning with clause 70. We concur with the independent review’s recommendations that a “clear and identifiable dutyholder”, with overall responsibility for building safety during occupation and maintenance, is needed for higher-risk buildings. Clause 70 makes certain that all occupied higher-risk buildings will have at least one clearly identifiable accountable person, known as the principal accountable person, who will be responsible for ensuring that fire and structural safety is being properly managed for the whole building.

This clause sets out that, where there is a single accountable person for a building, they will automatically become the principal accountable person. Where there are two or more accountable persons, the one responsible for the repair of the structure and exterior of the building will be the principal accountable person. The principal accountable person will have overall responsibility for meeting specific statutory obligations for the whole building, such as complying with registration and certification requirements for the building. Where there are multiple accountable persons for a building, the principal accountable person will have the same statutory obligations for assessing and managing building safety risks in their own part of the building as each individual accountable person. This will be as well as additional obligations arising from their role as principal accountable person.

As part of the registration process, the principal accountable person will identify themselves to the Building Safety Regulator as being the person with overall responsibility for managing fire and structural safety. If a principal accountable person does not come forward to register the building, the Building Safety Regulator can identify who the principal accountable person is by using the statutory definition, or by applying to the first-tier tribunal for a determination. Having a principal accountable person for each higher-risk building is critical to effectively managing buildings safely, as a whole, and ensuring that residents feel safe in their homes.

Clause 71 allows an interested party to make an application to the tribunal for a determination on who the accountable persons are, who the principal accountable person is, or which parts of the higher-risk building an accountable person is responsible for. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the correct persons with responsibility under the Bill are identified, and that the extent of where their responsibility lies is clear. The clause is to be used in complex cases requiring judicial oversight, as the tribunal will decide and provide clarity to those who may be affected by the Bill.

Once an interested party makes an application to the tribunal, the tribunal would make a decision that may bind persons as the ones with obligations pursuant to the extent applicable by the Bill. The clause specifies that an interested party who may apply to the tribunal is either the regulator or a person who holds a legal estate in any part of the building. Buildings must have only one principal accountable person, and in cases where more than one person fits the definition of a principal accountable person clause 71 allows the tribunal to decide, as it considers appropriate, who the principal accountable person for the building is.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for his thorough explanation, which was a great credit to him. I have a couple of questions. The clauses make sense—again, they are technical, tidying-up exercises. Earlier, I referred to 13,000 buildings. We have principal accountable persons and accountable persons. That is a lot of people who require the skills, qualifications and competence to ensure that this new landscape emerges. Are the Minister and his team convinced that it will be properly resourced, and that we genuinely will change the landscape for existing residents, leaseholders and other people? Also, on clause 71, at what stage should the determination be made at the tribunal? Must all buildings in scope have a clearly identified principal accountable person?

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. The question of capacity is an interesting one, although it may be that various people will hold principal accountable positions, as with building safety managers. Some people might hold the position for multiple buildings. There are big companies that own lots of buildings and will therefore already have managing obligations for multiple buildings. With regard to capacity, we are talking big numbers. According to my notes, the number of buildings in scope is 12,500, but some of them could be covered by multiple people. There are already large practices operating in this area.

As I said, given the existence of the Bill, and subsequent to Grenfell Tower, there has been a huge increase in the number of people who are concerned and active in the building safety sector, so I do not feel that there is any need to be concerned about capacity at this stage. However, the point and purpose of the Building Safety Regulator is to be live to changing circumstances so, should there prove to be challenges once the Bill is implemented, it will be for the regulator to monitor any challenges and report back to the Secretary of State. I am sure that we will talk about that in the House in future.

10:30

On the tribunal, we will discuss building registration when we come to other clauses. We are expecting buildings to be registered within six months of the implementation of the Bill. The Building Safety Regulator will be aware of any buildings that have not been registered or of cases in which there is complexity in identifying principal accountable persons or accountable persons. The number referred to the tribunal will, we hope, be limited. It will be imperative to move quickly in that small number of cases.

Amendment 52 agreed to.

Amendment made: 53, page 86, line 38, leave out from “person” to end of line 39 and insert “is within subsection (1)(b).” .—(Eddie Hughes.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 52.

Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71

Determinations by the tribunal

Amendments made: 54, page 87, line 9, leave out from “person” to “the principal” in line 11 and insert “within section 70(1)(b)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 52.

55, page 87, line 15, leave out “building” and insert

“common parts (or who claims to hold such an estate), or

(c) a person who is under a relevant repairing obligation in relation to any part of the common parts (or who claims to be under such an obligation).

(4) In subsection (3) ‘relevant repairing obligation’ and ‘common parts’ have the same meaning as in section 69.”—(Eddie Hughes.)

This amendment changes the persons who may make applications under this clause, limiting paragraph (b) to persons holding legal estates in the common parts, and including (in new paragraph (c)) persons under repairing obligations in relation to the common parts.

Clause 71, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72

Occupation: registration requirement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss clause 73 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

The Bill makes the principal accountable person responsible for registering a building and applying for a building assessment certificate. Building on those responsibilities, clause 72 requires that all occupied higher-risk buildings are registered with the Building Safety Regulator. The principal accountable person will commit an offence if they fail to register.

For new buildings, the principal accountable person will be required to register their building before it becomes occupied. For existing occupied buildings, there will be a transition period in which the principal accountable person must register their building. During the registration, the principal accountable person will provide important information about the building and its duty holders to the Building Safety Regulator. It will include core details of the building, including address, height, date of completion and the name and contact details of all accountable persons and any building safety manager.

The Building Safety Regulator will use the information obtained through the registration of the effective regulation of higher-risk buildings. For example, registration information will support the regulator in prioritising building assessment certificate applications. The regulator will also use registration information to publish the national register of higher-risk buildings.

Clause 72 sets out the maximum penalty for the criminal offence of breaching the registration requirement. If tried by magistrates, the offence will carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or 12 months’ imprisonment. If it is tried in the Crown court, the maximum penalty will be an unlimited fine and/or two years in prison. These measures are tough but fair and are an important addition to engender compliance with the regime.

Clause 73 makes provision for the registration of higher-risk buildings and allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out procedural and administrative details for registration. The information obtained through the registration will ensure that the Building Safety Regulator has a record of all occupied higher-risk buildings in England and those responsible for managing them. Information collected through registration will be used to produce the national register of higher-risk buildings, which will be published. That means that higher-risk buildings can be easily identified and give the regulator excellent oversight and data on buildings in scope.

Clause 73 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about registration applications. Information required in the registration process will be set out in regulations and will comprise core details of the building, including address, height and date of completion, and the name and contact details of the accountable persons, principal accountable persons, and any building safety manager. Regulations will also set out the procedures for submitting and withdrawing a registration application.

[Mike Amesbury]

The Minister referred to national registration. For residents and leaseholders who want to access the information, what form will it take? Will it be digital? The Joule Group International Ltd made a lengthy written submission on that topic. I would be interested in hearing the Minister comments.

[Eddie Hughes]

One of the things that needs to underpin the way the Bill operates is the access to digital information. We need to ensure that residents and leaseholders have no difficulty in accessing information about their building, and that the Building Safety Regulator has access to that information.

With regard to the capacity that we have discussed, once the register is published, the sector will understand the extent of the buildings in scope, where they are geographically and so on, and it will be able to respond in kind by developing appropriate resource in those areas. The information will be available digitally, which is one of the things that underpins the functioning of the Bill.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I was just listening carefully to the Minister. It is helpful to understand the digital nature and transparency of the measures. If there were a change to the details of a higher-risk building or an accountable person, would the register published by the Building Safety Regulator be updated, and how would that happen?

[Eddie Hughes]

When the registration details of a higher-risk building or an accountable person change, there will be a need to inform the Building Safety Regulator, which will need to consider whether further changes are needed. The point is that the Bill needs to be flexible to accommodate the circumstances that the hon. Lady has mentioned. We may need to consider that further.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, especially after some recent results.

Many people do not have digital access, despite the preoccupation with it. They might not be able to afford it or might not have the materials to get online. How will we ensure that residents who do not have the ability to access information digitally can see the overall picture of the register and any changes made to it? We need to drill down into that so that the Bill ensures that those records are accessible not only digitally and that everybody can access them.

[Eddie Hughes]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We do not have a preoccupation with digital, but it does allow lots of people easy access to the information. However, I think he is referring to the access to information that individual residents and leaseholders will have, which we will discuss later in Committee. It is incredibly important to me and to the Government that that information is presented to residents in an accessible format. That covers the necessity not just to publish the information in hard copy but to ensure that it is presented in an accessible format for people with any disability or impairment. I thank him for making that important point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 72 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74

Occupied building: duty to apply for building assessment certificate

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 75 to 77 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

As the previous clause makes the principal accountable person for a building responsible for registering their building with the Building Safety Regulator, clause 74 makes them responsible for periodically applying for a building assessment certificate. The building assessment certificate process will allow the Building Safety Regulator to assess whether, at the time of the assessment, the accountable person for a higher-risk building is meeting their obligation to manage building safety risk and keep residents safe.

The clause enables the Building Safety Regulator to direct the principal accountable person to apply for the building assessment certificate. If that happens, they must then apply for the building assessment certificate within 28 days of the notice’s being given.

The principal accountable person commits an offence if they fail to apply for the building assessment certification when directed to do so by the regulator, without a reasonable excuse. For new buildings, the principal accountable person will be directed to apply for the building assessment certificate within six months of occupation of the building.

There are currently around 12,500 occupied high-rise residential buildings in England. It will take around five years for the Building Safety Regulator to assess all these existing buildings for the first time. The regulator will take a risk-based approach to prioritising existing buildings for assessment and will assess the highest-priority buildings first. It will put existing occupied buildings into five annual groups, or tranches. These tranches are based on height, with the tallest buildings assessed first. All buildings will be reassessed at least every five years.

Clause 74 sets out the requirement for a principal accountable person to apply for a building assessment certificate when directed to do so by the Building Safety Regulator; as part of that process, clause 75 clause sets out the administrative and procedural requirements to obtain a certificate. To apply for the building assessment certificate, the principal accountable person will need to submit a suite of prescribed information and documentation to the regulator, including, among other things, a copy of the safety case report, the resident engagement strategy and information about the principal accountable person’s compliance in appointing a building safety manager.

The regulator will use the evidence provided to assess whether the accountable persons are complying with their obligations and managing the building’s safety risks effectively. To ensure an adaptable regime, clause 75 also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out further details of the process, including the form and content of an application, the way in which it is made, and anything that may accompany it.

The Bill creates a requirement for the principal accountable person for a higher-risk building to apply for a building assessment certificate when directed to do so by the Building Safety Regulator. The building assessment certificate will demonstrate that, at the time of assessment, the accountable persons were complying with their obligations to effectively manage the building’s safety risk and keep residents safe.

Following from that, clause 76 sets out how the Building Safety Regulator will make decisions about applications for the building assessment certificate. On receipt of the application, the regulator will consider the application and decide whether the relevant duties are being complied with. The regulator can also inspect the building before coming to a final decision.

If the regulator is satisfied that all relevant duties are being complied with, then it will issue the building assessment certificate. Before a certificate is issued, however, there are a number of relevant duties against which the regulator will assess compliance. These include appointing a building safety manager, assessing and managing building safety risks, and producing a safety case report. Clause 76 also allows the regulator to issue a notice to the principal accountable person if it finds that a relevant duty is not being complied with on assessment, but can be put right quite easily.

10:45

If the principal accountable person complies with the notice and the contravention is fixed within the specified period, the regulator will issue the building assessment certificate. Through the clause, the Secretary of State will also have the ability to make regulations setting out both procedural and administrative details of the building assessment certificate process. This includes the information to be included in the building assessment certificate.

It is important that the residents of higher-risk buildings have access to information about the management of their building. To that end, the clause ensures that residents can access information about the most recent assessment of their building by the Building Safety Regulator. It requires the principal accountable person to display the most recent building assessment certificate in a prominent place in the building where it can be viewed by residents. Residents need to have access to information about those responsible for managing their building and keeping them safe. That is why the clause creates a requirement for the principal accountable person to display a notice containing the details of the accountable person and any building safety manager. This will ensure that the residents know who is responsible for managing the building safety risks and how to contact them to raise concerns. Residents also need to know if there are issues or concerns regarding the management of the building. That is why the clause creates a requirement for the principal accountable person to display in the building any relevant compliance notices issued by the regulator.

[Mike Amesbury]

The Minister refers to a resident engagement strategy. What would a good resident engagement strategy look like and where would people find information on that? What information will be contained in the building safety certificate? Where are the reference points for that?

[Eddie Hughes]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for another day to hear about the resident engagement strategy. That is an exciting episode that we will discuss in detail later in the Bill. I look forward to engagements on that.

I explained some of the information that will be displayed on the certificate but I think the pre-eminent role of that is to ensure that residents know who is responsible for building safety within their building. The certificate will identify the principal accountable persons so that residents know where the line of responsibility lies. That is why it is important that such information is displayed prominently in the building.

[Ms Rimmer]

It is a pleasure, Mr Dowd, to serve under your chairmanship.

The certificate is a piece of paper that is on display but what will ensure that there is compliance with the policies, procedures and arrangements that lie behind the provision of the certificate?

[Eddie Hughes]

That question goes to the heart of how the Bill will change responsibility in the future. It will be important that the information is displayed, and if it is not—and we will talk about resident engagement later in the Bill, but I will touch on it briefly now—residents will now know who is responsible. As part of that process, there will have to be a complaints procedure through which they can escalate their complaints. A well-informed bunch of residents in a property will understand what provision should be made for them and how they can be helped to be apprised of building safety. If that is not done, the opportunity to make a complaint and escalate appropriately and perhaps ultimately to the Building Safety Regulator, if necessary, will be one of the things that we will talk about later. The hon. Lady is right. It is imperative that residents have access to that information and, when it is not provided, they have a route to escalate a complaint about its absence.

[Ms Rimmer]

The Committee has talked about the culture in the building industry and how there has been a lack of trust. At its core the Bill is about changing that culture and bringing about safety. The issue is in training people, ensuring that they keep that training up, quantity and compliance. We must ensure that the procedures on which people are trained are adhered to consistently. That must be part of the arrangements. We should be really concerned about that—I am not saying that we are not—and ensure that that happens. The culture of the people working in the industry is vital.

[Eddie Hughes]

One of the great things about the Committee is the agreement we have had at several points on matters of great concern. It is important that this is not a tick-box exercise. It is not, “I submit information to you. You tick a few boxes and give me a certificate. I put it on the wall, and everybody feels that we live in a safer place.” Since the Bill has been talked about, we are already seeing that culture change.

To cross-reference that with regard to the social housing White Paper—my other responsibility—we need to put tenants at the heart of everything that we do. This is not an academic or legislative exercise for a bunch of people in the room to figure out the best way to do things and trust that that will be done in the future. The hon. Lady is completely right that we need to change the culture, bringing tenants and residents with us, and I think that the Bill will serve that purpose.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 74 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 75 to 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78

Duty to appoint building safety manager

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 79 to 82 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

The independent review recommend the creation of the role of the building safety manager with the right skills, knowledge and experience to oversee the day-to-day management of higher-risk buildings. The Government agree, and the clause both establishes the role of the building safety manager and makes it a duty of the principal accountable person to appoint one for occupied buildings.

It is important that competent persons are engaged to support the co-ordination and management of safety, providing a systemic approach and delivering safe outcomes for residents. The principal accountable person must be satisfied with the competence of their appointed building safety manager.

While the building safety manager will also hold responsibility for certain tasks and provide expertise and assistance, accountability for meeting the duties set out in Bill cannot be transferred by accountable persons. Such an approach is commonplace in the standard arrangement in many high-hazard sectors.

The tasks to be undertaken by the building safety manager will be set out in contract with the principal accountable person. The role may be fulfilled by an individual with the necessary skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours or by an organisation such as a managing agent. Where an organisation is appointed, that does not in any way dilute the need for competency requirements to be met. Any organisation appointed as building safety manager must have the capability to deliver and must have a nominated individual in place with the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours needed to oversee that that is achieved. We believe that requiring a named individual to be nominated from within the organisation appointed as building safety manager is the right way to provide assurance to residents. If at any time the appointment of a building safety manager comes to an end, a new one must be appointed as soon as reasonably practical. Given the importance of the role in supporting the delivery of safe buildings, failure to appoint a building safety manager without reasonable excuse will be an offence.

This is a new role and we have been working hard to ensure a smooth transition. Through the competence steering group, we are sponsoring the development of a publicly available specification for building safety managers, which will be available ahead of the requirement coming into force. Latter clauses deal with an exception to the duty to appoint a building safety manager, which allows principal accountable persons to deliver the role themselves where they are suitably able.

Clause 79 relates to the appointment of a building safety manager for a building with two or more accountable persons. The Government strongly support the independent review’s proposals for a whole building approach to be delivered and to do so there should not be multiple building safety managers in place. A single building safety manager should be appointed by the principal accountable person, playing a key role in ensuring a whole building approach to delivering safe outcomes for residents is delivered.

Every accountable person must ensure that they meet the relevant duties placed on them by the Bill, including the duty to co-operate and co-ordinate with one another, ensuring this whole building approach is delivered. Before the appointment can be finalised, accountable persons should agree on the scope of the building safety manager’s role and how each will contribute to payments made to the building safety manager. A consultation between the parties should arrive at this, and ratify the agreement. The principal accountable person must provide a document for other accountable persons setting out the terms of an agreement, including establishing the arrangements for sharing expenditure. By reaching such an agreement, all accountable persons will understand and confirm their support for the scope of the building safety manager’s functions across the whole building and how they must act to enable delivery.

Where no agreement can be reached, we will ensure, through regulations, that appropriate mechanisms are in place to arrive at suitable conclusions. We are confident that through this approach we are protecting property rights, ensuring each accountable person meets their obligations and delivering safe outcomes for residents.

Clause 80 relates to the terms of appointment of building safety managers and confirms that the role is held by virtue of the contractual arrangements agreed with the principal accountable person. Either party may confirm in writing to the other their intention to end the agreement. When that occurs, as set out under clause 78, the appointment of a building safety manager must be made as soon as possible to replace the outgoing building safety manager.

Where a building is put into special measures, the effect will be that the building safety manager’s appointment will cease. As a special measures order is a last resort for failing buildings, special measures managers must be afforded the scope to act in the best interest of residents. In such circumstances, it would not be right for the building safety manager to remain in place.

The independent review highlighted the need to improve the management of safety in occupied higher-risk buildings and recommended the new role of building safety manager. The review rightly noted that many building owners have the capability to, and already do, deliver safe outcomes for residents themselves. As mentioned, we are making provisions to allow principal accountable persons to confirm their capability to deliver safe outcomes without appointing a building safety manager to assist them. This exception is designed with parameters and, importantly, the same competency standards must be met by the principal accountable person.

A principal accountable person must be satisfied in their capabilities to fulfil the duties placed on them and be able to demonstrate that their approach will deliver safe outcomes for residents. It is our expectation that this exception will be a benefit to organisations such as housing associations and local authorities, many of which already successfully manage their own building stock through in-house teams. Where the principal accountable person is an organisation, and it relies on that exception, it must have a named individual identified who has the skills, knowledge and experience to oversee day-to-day management of building safety risks.

11:00

The requirements of the new regime are clear. There must be a joined-up approach that looks at building safety risk management and the safety critical elements holistically. To support that, the nominated individual should hold a position of authority within the organisation of the principal accountable person, managing the interactions and the interdependencies of safety critical areas, enabling the effective management of building safety risks. Although we do not expect that they will carry out every task directly, they must have oversight to ensure that an holistic and systemic approach is in place. Residents expect that, and we will ensure that it is delivered. Failure to meet the obligations to nominate a competent individual as set out in the clause will be an offence. If at any time circumstances change and the criteria for meeting the exception no longer apply, a building safety manager must be appointed and the building safety regulator updated.

Clause 82 relates to the exception to the principal accountable person’s duty to appoint a building safety manager in buildings with more than one accountable person. If the principal accountable person has the capability to deliver the building safety manager function, and reaches an agreement with their fellow accountable persons, they too can be exempt from the duty to appoint a building safety manager. Before this can be confirmed, and the regulator notified, the principal accountable person must consult their fellow accountable persons. The consultation and subsequent agreement should align with the process, as would happen if an external building safety manager was appointed by the principal accountable person. Where no agreement can be reached, the process for arriving at a resolution will follow the same course as will be in place for building safety manager appointments in buildings with more than one accountable person. Regulations will be introduced to support those processes, including providing details of the consultation, the written agreement between accountable persons and dispute resolution.

[Ms Rimmer]

Is the certificate transferrable within an organisation to individuals? Would the Health and Safety Executive have some responsibility to ensure that if a new manager came along in the future, or a new accountable person, they would be up to the skills required to qualify for the original certificate?

[Eddie Hughes]

That is an interesting point. As I said, we need to ensure that the building safety regulator is kept informed and they will be able to determine that the new building safety manager appointed meets the criteria set out in the Bill. Effectively, if someone operates as a building safety manager and complies with the criteria set out in the Bill, a change in personnel should not matter because the competence level will be maintained and assured.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 78 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 79 to 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83

Assessment of building safety risks

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 84 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 83 relates to the undertaking of comprehensive and regular assessments of building safety risks in occupied higher-risk building.

The independent review identified that, too often, building safety has not been proactively maintained over a building’s life cycle, and that fire risk assessments were frequently inadequate and in some cases not carried out at all. We are taking steps to ensure that this lax culture changes and are making it a clear duty on accountable persons to ensure that assessments of building safety risks are carried out. Risk assessments must consider hazards that may originate from outside of the part of the building under the direct control of accountable persons, including in mixed-use buildings where commercial activities may be carried out.

Where there is more than one accountable person for a building, each is duty bound to co-ordinate and co-operate with others. At a minimum, risk assessments should be shared to ensure a whole-building approach is delivered. We are also clear that risk assessments must enable accountable persons to comply with the ongoing duty to take all reasonable steps to manage building safety risks and risk assessments must remain up to date.

The clause requires further risk assessments to be carried out not at specified intervals but based on the accountable person’s knowledge and experience of the building. We recognise that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution and the challenge for the industry is to take greater ownership and responsibility for ensuring safety, rather than relying on being told what to do and when. The regulator will, however, have the power to require that a risk assessment be undertaken where it considers it necessary.

Established best practice risk assessment principles, including the use of management systems that deliver evaluation and monitoring, will continue to play an important role. Those building owners who have been acting responsibly will not find they are presented with a significant additional burden, but we must ensure that the right legal framework is in place to make sure that residents of higher-risk buildings are and can feel safe in their homes.

The Government are committing to providing the right framework to deliver on the challenges and recommendations set out by the independent review. The clause places a clear duty on accountable persons to take all reasonable steps to deliver ongoing management of fire and structural safety while a building is occupied, ensuring that residents are safe and feel safe in their homes.

There are two clear purposes for the management of building safety risks: to prevent an incident from happening and to limit the consequences should one arise. The new safety case approach is based on delivering those tangible outcomes, not on blindly following guidance, which was a criticism of the previous system levelled by the independent review. The steps required by the clause must be taken as a direct response to the results of risk assessments carried out under the previous clause. Accountable persons must make an informed judgment on the steps they take and safety arrangements that they need to have in place to deliver safety for residents.

The new regime promotes a proportionate approach and requires people to think for themselves. It is not about requiring all buildings to be brought up to existing standards, which would be disproportionate and, in many cases, impractical. Accountable persons must deliver and maintain a combination of preventive, control and mitigation measures to guarantee that effective and efficient layers of protection are in place. Regulations will be made to set the principles accountable persons must follow when managing building safety risks. These will establish a best practice approach, helping accountable persons make informed decisions.

The expectation on duty holders in an outcome-focused regime is that they adopt a systemic and proactive approach to risk management. The clause requires that approach to be delivered. The review’s recommendation set a clear expectation that duty holders adopt and can describe the building safety management systems they have in place to deliver that approach. Accountable persons must have systems and policies in place that ensure that their safety arrangements are maintained and remain effective. Such arrangements help ensure that potential safety risks are proactively identified and managed on a continuous basis, improving performance and delivering better safety outcomes. The Health and Safety Executive has vast experience of delivering effective regulatory oversight of industry that requires similar approaches to the management of risks and delivery of safety.

We, and the shadow regulator, recognise the need to work with industry as we move towards the new framework, and have been working closely with industry, including the early adopters group and the joint regulators group, to support that. The shadow regulator recently published a paper setting out the key principles and requirements of a safety case regime. That will help preparations for the new regime and support the development of future guidance. Many responsible building owners already operate in that manner, and the new framework will further support them to deliver safety for residents.

[Mike Amesbury]

Of course, the new regime is resource intensive. We have principal accountable persons, accountable persons, building safety managers and 12,500 to 13,000 buildings. There will be new builds each year; I am not sure what the projections are. It is about having that reassurance that the new regime can be effectively implemented, and that people will have the competency and qualifications. Who will pay for this landscape? It seems potentially very costly. What salary level would a building safety manager, a principal accountable person or an accountable person have?

[Eddie Hughes]

We return to the question of capacity. I touched on the idea that organisations such as housing associations or councils already have their buildings under a management structure and a safety structure, and already have appropriate people appointed to those roles. They will have a benchmark with regard to the legislation that sets out the requirements of a building safety manager against which to measure that they have the appropriate skills and competences in place. The fact that within those organisations they will need to identify a named person who has those competences will focus minds, albeit that the person with those responsibilities might not need to discharge all the duties; they can delegate them to others.

The hon. Gentleman is right that this is a big endeavour, but it already exists in many organisations. On the appropriate salary levels, I think it is beyond the scope of the Bill to identify the remuneration for people employed in this, but as I say there are already people doing this role and I am sure that those who are already managing their buildings effectively and safely will not find this a much more onerous obligation.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to see a fellow Black Country MP on the Treasury Bench. I agree wholeheartedly with what the Minister said, but we need to ensure that we do not allow anyone to test the boundaries, particularly when it comes to such things as regular intervals on assessment. He encapsulated a lot of what I was going to say in his contribution. I know that he agrees that we have to have a culture that ensures that those who are regulated by the legislation and by regulations do not see the leeway that we have rightly given them as an opportunity to test the boundaries.

[Eddie Hughes]

It is an important point. We need to strike a balance between being prescriptive, and setting very specific regulatory periods within which tasks have to be performed, and allowing some latitude for people to continue to manage their buildings in an appropriate way. If we give prescription for one thing it certainly will not apply across all 12,500 buildings, or however many more might be created in future. I return to the point about the Building Safety Regulator being live to developments within the sector and ensuring that it can respond accordingly.

[Mike Amesbury]

We have both been involved in the social housing sector. The Minister rightly referred to the exemptions. The current landscape and resourcing are there for some in the sector—for some who will be within the scope of the Bill—but it will be different for others in the private sector and, indeed, for some in the third sector. He referred to the regulator and associated committees and to the industry looking at competences and qualifications. Surely, they will look at salary levels. That will not be a role for Ministers or members of the Opposition, but it is important that it is resourced and attracts the right calibre of people.

11:15

[Eddie Hughes]

I am grateful for the opportunity of further deliberation on this point. The Bill will stipulate the level of competence, and remuneration will vary across the country. I understand the hon. Gentleman saying that this process could be expensive, but fortunately it already exists. We need to focus on the competence rather than on the money, and that will lead to improved safety.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85

Safety case report

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to consider clause 86 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

The independent review recommended the introduction of a safety case regime for high-rise residential buildings to drive culture change and improve the understanding and management of fire and structural safety risks, delivering safer buildings for residents. We are delivering on this recommendation. The introduction of this regime will change the way in which building owners demonstrate how they are managing building safety risks.

Safety case regimes have been successful in improving safety standards and reducing incidents in a number of sectors. Under this approach, accountable persons will not be able to rest on the assumption that merely following prescribed standards will result in safe outcomes. They must produce and maintain documented assurance to demonstrate that they are meeting the duties placed on them.

Safety case reports, which will be assessed by the Building Safety Regulator, are a tool that help to offer this assurance. The report must focus on the unique risks and arrangements in place at each higher-risk building and should justify why the safety arrangements that accountable persons are taking are appropriate and sufficient for managing the risks present. We will set out in secondary legislation the form and minimum content required for a safety case report. This will provide clarity on the areas that should be covered.

The HSE, as the shadow regulator, is leading a work programme with industry that will deliver simple guidance to help those with duties under the new regime comply with these new requirements. 

The safety case regime is a dynamic and continuous process. A safety case report must remain relevant and be revised to reflect the risks present and how the building is being managed if and when circumstances change. Safety case reports will be assessed by the Building Safety Regulator, including as part of the building assessment certification process. On assessment, the regulator may use its powers of direction to require that further safety measures be implemented if they consider that accountable persons do not have sufficient arrangements already in place. 

The process of developing the safety case report will improve safety by ensuring a systemic review and assessment of hazards and their associated risks and the control measures either required or being employed to eliminate or reduce them. The Health and Safety Executive has vast experience and expertise in delivering regulatory oversight for safety case regimes and working collaboratively with stakeholders. We will ensure the right environment is in place to deliver holistic management of building safety risks, so that residents are, and feel, safe in their homes.

The independent review recommended that the duty holder for occupied higher-risk buildings be required to present their safety case to the regulator at regular intervals, to demonstrate that building safety risks are being managed. Clause 86 provides the framework by which this process will be delivered. On completion of a safety case report, and at any time when the report is revised thereafter, the principal accountable person must notify the regulator. As noted, the regulator will assess the safety case report as part of the building assessment certification process, but it may also undertake a further assessment if that is deemed necessary. The report must be submitted if such a request is made. The knowledge that there has been a review by the regulator of the safety arrangements in place in their building will provide reassurance to residents that their buildings are safe to occupy. These arrangements will ensure that the regulator is able to maintain oversight and deliver its functions effectively.

[Ms Rimmer]

The Bill is already setting criteria for the building safety case report, inasmuch as it refers to 18 metres or seven storeys. Beneath that, a building does not comply, so how or where do we get the building safety manager’s freedom to do a personal risk assessment of a building that is below seven storeys or 18 metres? Can the Minister quantify or qualify how they are going to be able to do their job, or is this one of the “developments” that we are looking for to change the criteria, to bring buildings below that measurement in?

[Eddie Hughes]

I think there is a terrible possibility that I may not have completely understood the case the hon. Lady was making. The point about the assessment is that it will be a live assessment of the risks in a particular building and then the mitigating factors that will be introduced in order to minimise those risks. With regard to the prescription of building height set out in previous clauses, that simply determines which buildings are in scope. If we assume that a building is in scope, that the legislation applies and that the principal accountable person needs to submit their building case to the regulator in order for it to be assessed, that will be bespoke and determined by individual building requirements.

[Mike Amesbury]

On the safety case reports, a lot of the detail will, again, be elaborated on in secondary legislation. Sometimes this is rather difficult—we are operating blind—in terms of scrutiny and challenge. Something that we are all familiar with, in regard to the history and journey of the Bill, is the practice in the construction sector of setting up special delivery vehicles and then folding them. How will the information be retrieved, in terms of the safety case report, if those organisations no longer exist?

[Eddie Hughes]

I have two points. With regard to the idea that some of this information will be developed as secondary legislation and the idea of scrutiny and challenge, we will use the affirmative procedure, so I strongly suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I might be standing across from each other in a room like this, deliberating on the content of those statutory instruments, in the future.

With regard to the structure of companies that are set up, if the hon. Gentleman is referring particularly to new buildings, the idea of the golden thread that runs through this process means that we will be capturing more information, more or less from conception of the building through to its construction and occupation. It means that we will have better access to information, and safety will have been built in early on and a more rigorous process adopted in order to ensure that safety, given the fact that named people will apply throughout the whole process, so I think assurance will be built in once the Bill is introduced.

11:25

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Elections Bill (Eighth sitting)

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Rushanara Ali, Sir Edward Leigh, Mark Pritchard, Christina Rees

† Anderson, Fleur (Putney) (Lab)

† Badenoch, Kemi (Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)

† Bell, Aaron (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)

† Bristow, Paul (Peterborough) (Con)

† Clarkson, Chris (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)

† Furniss, Gill (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)

† Gibson, Peter (Darlington) (Con)

† Grady, Patrick (Glasgow North) (SNP)

† Harris, Rebecca (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

† Hollern, Kate (Blackburn) (Lab)

† Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con)

† Mayhew, Jerome (Broadland) (Con)

† O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)

† Randall, Tom (Gedling) (Con)

† Shelbrooke, Alec (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)

† Smith, Cat (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)

† Smith, Nick (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)

Adam Mellows-Facer, Chris Stanton, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 19 October 2021

(Afternoon)

[Rushanara Ali in the Chair]

Elections Bill

14:00

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few reminders for the Committee—you heard them this morning, but I am required to repeat them. Could you please switch electronic devices to silent? I encourage all Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other enough space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would appreciate it if Members could email their speaking notes to [e-mail].

We now resume line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Members wishing to press a grouped amendment to a Division should indicate when speaking to it that they wish to do so.

Clause 6

Requirement of secrecy

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Kemi Badenoch)]

The clause concerns the important issue of the secrecy of the ballot for postal and proxy voters. Its purpose is to extend the requirements in place to protect the secrecy of voting for persons voting in polling stations to those voting by postal vote and proxy voting. This change implements a recommendation in the Pickles report, which found that:

“The secrecy of the ballot is fundamental to the ability of voters to cast their vote freely without pressure to vote a certain way.”

This is an important measure to keep our elections up to date, particularly as the rise of digital communication channels and social media could increase the risk that voters experience undue pressure and are compelled by inappropriate influence to take a photo of their postal ballot to show how they have voted. That goes against the fundamental democratic principle that someone’s vote is personal and secret, and we believe that it is unacceptable.

The measure will prevent a person from seeking to find out or communicate information about someone else’s postal vote, such as how the person has voted. The safeguards will also apply to the postal votes of those acting as a proxy for another elector. Additionally, a proxy will not be permitted to disclose information about how they voted, other than to the elector who appointed them. The existing offence in section 66 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 will apply to anyone who contravenes the new provisions related to postal and proxy votes. Voting by post or a proxy are perfectly valid ways in which an elector can choose to cast their ballot and should be protected by the same level of secrecy as in-person voting.

The clause also makes an important change to the existing requirement for a person who assists a blind voter in a polling station to maintain the secrecy of voting. That requirement will be extended to a person assisting a voter who has another disability or who is unable to read.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Ali. Clause 6 extends the requirement of secrecy to proxy and postal votes, which is a right and proper move. It is fundamental.

The Minister raised in her remarks the principle of free and fair elections. There are many principles that we need to adhere to if we are to have free and fair elections, and there are many things we could do in the Bill to extend those free and fair elections that would improve the Bill.

We support clause 6, but we have a couple of questions. Someone photographing a postal vote and perhaps posting it on their Instagram because they are proud of how they voted is very different from someone taking a photograph of their ballot paper because another person is putting pressure on them to prove that they have voted a certain way. Does the Minister agree that those are two very different issues? How might the provisions of the clause be implemented to differentiate between those two examples? There are those who may be pressured to act in a certain way and to photograph their ballot paper to prove it, but I am sure that all Committee members know of party activists who photograph their own ballot papers and post them on Twitter, saying how proud they are to vote for the A. N. Other party candidate in an election. Those are two very different things. Will the Minister highlight how she envisages that they will be differentiated?

[Kemi Badenoch]

That is an important distinction to make. There are people who inadvertently break the law and those who do it for a different reason. We are trying to prevent failure to maintain secrecy because of undue influence. We will discuss undue influence more generally in the next clause, but this clause ensures that people are not being made to do things that they would not ordinarily do just to prove who they have voted for.

The offence is already in law, so we are not doing something new but extending the offence to postal and proxy votes. We will be carrying on as we are at the moment, but ensuring that the standards for postal and proxy votes are brought up to the same level as those for in-person voting.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Undue influence

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

It is a core tenet of our democracy that electors should be able to cast their vote free from interference and intimidation. Although it is already an offence to unduly influence an elector, the legislation has not been substantively updated since the 19th century. In the “Protecting the Debate” public consultation, 100% of respondents agreed that the law on undue influence requires greater clarity. The outdated legislation needs to be updated to provide electors with the protection they deserve.

Clause 7 therefore updates the existing electoral offence of undue influence in section 115 of the 1983 Act. It clarifies the types of activity that amount to undue influence, including physical violence, intimidation, damage to a person’s property or reputation, or deceiving a person in relation to the administration of an election. By broadening the scope of what constitutes elector intimidation for the purposes of undue influence, this measure helps to address the concerns raised by both the Pickles report and the Tower Hamlets election court that undue influence currently

“does not penalise thuggish conduct at polling stations of the sort that occurred in 2014”.

The clause maintains the existing offence’s reference to undue spiritual influence, as recommended by the independent Pickles review on electoral fraud. Given their charisma and authority, some spiritual leaders are uniquely able to abuse a person’s religious convictions to change their voting behaviour. However, I also recognise that a degree of spiritual influence is inherent in all positions of religious or spiritual authority.

Undue behaviour does not include, for example, a religious leader expressing their opinion on political or policy matters that have implications for the principles of that religion. It would also not apply in the case of religious groups for whom not voting is an established doctrinal position. It is only when spiritual influence becomes a form of improper pressure that it amounts to undue influence. I want to emphasise that this clause has been crafted to promote the genuine enjoyment of both the freedoms of religion and expression and the right to vote in elections free from spiritual harm or pressure.

Finally, schedule 4 ensures that if a person is guilty of undue influence in relation to any electoral event anywhere in the UK, the resulting incapacity—a 5-year ban on being elected to or holding certain offices—should apply consistently to elected offices across the UK.

The clause makes undue influence clearer to interpret and enforce, and I therefore urge that the clause and its associated schedule stand part of the Bill.

[Cat Smith]

I thank the Minister for her remarks and echo the fact that for many of us, our politics and our faith are entwined. Indeed, our faith backgrounds often influence our politics and guide our values, so I am glad for her clarification and remarks.

The report that she highlighted recommended improvements around the existing corrupt practice of undue influence, which is subject to an offence designed to protect electors from malicious interference and intimidation. The main purpose of the clause is to clarify the activities that constitute undue influence in order to make the legislation easier to interpret. For that reason, the Opposition will support it.

We are pleased that Ministers backed away from creating a new offence, given that the existing criminal law is perfectly capable of dealing with intimidation and harassment. The enforcement of the law is the problem, and an update of section 115 of the 1983 Act, which, as the Minister pointed out, originated in the 19th century, is long overdue.

Although we welcome the clause, it is just a small step forward. We are disappointed not to see the comprehensive and joined-up reform of electoral law that is required.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 8

Assistance with voting for persons with disabilities

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 8, page 11, leave out lines 16 to 27 and insert—

“(a) in paragraph (3A)(b), for ‘a device’ substitute ‘equipment’;

(b) after paragraph (3A)(b) insert—

‘(c) such equipment as it is reasonable to provide for the purposes of enabling, or making it easier for, relevant persons to vote in the manner directed by rule 37.’;

(c) after paragraph (3A) insert—

‘(3B) In paragraph (3A)(c), “relevant persons” means persons who find it difficult or impossible to vote in the manner directed by rule 37 because of a disability.’”

This amendment would retain the requirement for returning officers to make specific provision at polling stations to enable voters who are blind or partially-sighted to vote without any need for assistance from the presiding officer or any companion and change the nature of that provision from “a device” to “equipment”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Patrick Grady]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali.

The amendment, which was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute, is pretty straightforward and simple. It preserves and enhances current provisions and protections for blind and partially sighted people, while incorporating the Government’s new provisions for people with all other kinds of disabilities to be fully supported when casting their vote. The 1983 Act, as amended, provides that:

“The returning officer shall also provide each polling station with—

(a) at least one large version of the ballot paper which shall be displayed inside the polling station for the assistance of voters who are partially-sighted”.

I am sure that we are all familiar with seeing the big ballot papers up, and I think that they are probably a help for most voters going into the polling station, irrespective of whether they are partially sighted. The Act states that the returning officer shall also provide:

“(b) a device of such description as may be prescribed for enabling voters who are blind or partially-sighted to vote without any need for assistance from the presiding officer or any companion”.

Clause 8 removes subparagraph (b) and replaces it with a more general requirement for returning officers to provide

“such equipment as it is reasonable to provide for the purposes of enabling, or making easier for, relevant persons to vote in the manner directed by rule 37.”

During the oral evidence sessions, the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), argued that the provision expands and enhances the duties of returning officers and will not diminish the support currently available for blind and partially sighted people. I suspect her successor will say the same. That does not necessarily reflect the reality on the ground. Even with the current RPA requirements, the Royal National Institute of Blind People estimates that four in five blind people cannot vote independently and in secret. Its researchers found that 46% of blind and partially sighted people—less than half—are satisfied with their experience of voting, and at polling stations nearly two thirds of blind people, 61%, and a third of partially sighted people, 32%, had to get another person to help them to vote.

I am sure that Members have read the written evidence submitted to the Committee by the RNIB—EB04—which contains some quotes from respondents to the survey and research that the RNIB has carried out. One says

“The lady had to read out the candidates to me and point out the one that I wanted to vote for. It was slightly humiliating… Don’t get me wrong—the ladies were lovely and kind but it wasn’t secret or independent.”

Another said:

“I usually have my partner with me to help, which makes things easier, but today I was alone, which made me realise just how dependent I am on others. Very negative from start to finish.”

That evidence went on to say:

“In 2019, a Judicial Review found the Government’s current provisions to support blind and partially sighted voters unlawful, with the judge describing existing provisions as ‘a parody of the electoral process’ because of the inability for voters to review the ballot paper independently using equipment provided and then make their mark.”

That is 150 years since the Ballot Act 1872 provided for everyone to have the right to vote in secret.

I suspect that we will hear from the Minister that the Cabinet Office—well, it was the Cabinet Office, but perhaps it is now the levelling-up Department or whoever is in charge—or the Government collectively are engaging with the RNIB to update the technology to improve the provisions. That is great, and that is a simple matter of fact: they are working with the stakeholders and that is welcome. However, the same stakeholders are clear that the Bill as drafted represents a diminishment of the current rights afforded to blind and partially sighted people.

14:15

The amendment has the active support of the RNIB and a range of other disability rights organisations who submitted a statement as written evidence to the Committee—paper EB07—which I am sure members of the Committee, and those on the Government Benches in particular, are familiar with. The statement, which was supported, by the RNIB, Age UK, the Business Disability Forum, Leonard Cheshire, Sense and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, says:

“While we support efforts to improve accessibility for everyone, changes to benefit other disabled voters do not need to replace provisions provided for blind and partially sighted people… We see no reason why wording to allow blind or partially-sighted people to ‘to vote without any need for assistance’ using adaptations prescribed by Government should not be maintained given the fundamental and unique challenges blind and partially sighted people face in casting a vote.”

That point was reflected in oral evidence heard by the Committee. The head of policy at Disability Rights UK, Fazilet Hadi, said:

“My main point would be that if there is prescribed equipment…let that be prescribed, so that we get consistency across the board, but let us have an additional provision about how all reasonable adjustments should be made… I do not mind that being repeated, but I do not think we should be confusing prescribing equipment for whichever impairment group needs it with the duty to make reasonable adjustments.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2021; c. 113-4, Q174.]

In that evidence, we hear one of the key points: the Equality Act 2010 already obliges returning officers to make reasonable adjustments to support disabled voters, which is essentially what the clause provides for. It is not clear what the clause adds, but it is clear what it removes.

Amendment 60 would change a reference in the RPA to provision of “a device” to provision of “equipment”. That would help answer the point about moving to more sophisticated technology than the current tactile voting device, which sits on top of the ballot paper and has tactile and Braille numbers associated with each candidate to allow the list of candidates to be read out and the voter to make a fold to make their choice in secret. However, as we have heard and as the research shows, that is not the experience of every blind and partially sighted voter. The change of “a device” to “equipment” would allow for a little more flexibility and modernisation in exactly what provision is made, while retaining the specific requirement to support blind and partially sighted voters.

The amendment ought to be relatively straightforward and acceptable to the Government. Aside from the small change from “a device” to “equipment”, it does not ask election officials to do anything new or different from what they are already supposed to do—even if that is not happening in practice. It would also retain the Government’s wording in the clause.

I hope that the Minister will find a way to support the amendment, although precedent suggests that that will not be the case. If I am not to be proved wrong, will she at least outline the reassurances that the Government will provide to blind and partially sighted people who simply want to exercise their right to vote independently and in secret?

[Kemi Badenoch]

Although the Government share the aim of elections being accessible to all voters, we cannot agree to the amendment because it is needlessly prescriptive. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s arguments, which were not bad ones. I understand what he is saying, but we disagree on what the clause is trying to do.

I emphasise firmly that the principle underpinning the change is to make elections more accessible to a wider range of disabled voters. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s agreement with the provision to include, for the first time in law, a requirement for returning officers to consider the needs of voters with a wide range of disabilities when providing equipment for polling stations. However, I do not agree with the proposal to keep a piece of specific, prescribed equipment for one subset of disabled voters.

Our experience with prescribing assistive equipment in law is that it can become an obstacle to wider inclusion and innovation more generally. A prescriptive approach in legislation makes changes difficult when better solutions are developed, and it also becomes an impediment to their development. We believe it is better to allow returning officers that flexibility to tailor the equipment they provide to suit the needs of voters in their area.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Has the Minister been able to meet the RNIB? I have met its representatives and heard their concerns, and we have all seen their written evidence. They discussed their concern about the word “reasonable”, as it will not widen access to means of voting but reduce it because there will be inconsistency: what is deemed reasonable will be different at different polling stations, instead of being consistent for all people. That may mean that instead of access being widened there will actually be nothing.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I have not personally been able to meet the RNIB, but I believe that officials and possibly my predecessor did—[Interruption.] My officials are confirming that that is the case. We have seen its evidence and we believe that these changes are proportionate. We do not expect the outcomes that the RNIB has outlined to necessarily be the case.

I am a patron of a sight organisation in my constituency called Support 4 Sight, and I have discussed the issue with its representatives. They raised this legislation with me during a surgery and I was able to reassure them. I will be happy to write to the RNIB, as the Bill progresses and as we consider the secondary legislation, to see what other reassurances we can provide for it.

Sorry, I have lost my place in my notes—bear with me just a moment.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kemi Badenoch]

Yes—thank you!

[Jerome Mayhew]

Perhaps the Minister will be interested to learn that one of the pilots for new equipment for people with disabilities—particularly the blind—was undertaken in my constituency. I had a meeting with the chief executive of my local authority to discuss how that pilot went; it was quite small, involving, from memory, seven to 11 people, but the new equipment did seem to voters’ experience. Is the Minister concerned that there will be a dead hand on innovation if we are too prescriptive in the drafting of the clause?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I do thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—[Laughter.]

As I was saying, it is better to allow returning officers the flexibility to tailor the equipment they provide to suit the needs of voters in their area. The new requirement will also be supported by Electoral Commission guidance, which will be developed in conjunction with organisations representing a wide range of disabled people and will support returning officers to make positive decisions to support disabled electors. Retaining a specific prescriptive requirement is an unnecessary obstacle to inclusion, as I mentioned earlier; it is also a significant challenge for those who administer elections, as I am informed we heard in evidence to the Committee before I took up this post.

I would like to provide a little additional reassurance to the hon. Member for Glasgow North. I understand the problem that he believes he is trying to solve. It is important to emphasise that we are not removing the requirement to support blind and partially sighted voters; we are only changing how that is delivered. The current requirement is too restrictive: providing only a single device is an obstacle to innovation and wider inclusion. Our approach will ensure that the most suitable support is provided at polling stations.

The hon. Member for Putney referred to the RNIB, and I can provide additional reassurance. We are trying to make elections as accessible as possible for all those eligible to vote. That is why, for example, we are removing restrictions on who can act as a companion to support electors with disabilities to cast their votes. For the first time in electoral law, we are also putting in place a broader requirement in respect of equipment at polling stations, and that should help more disabled people.

What we are doing will provide additional accessibility, as I will discuss when I speak to clause 8. We respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Cat Smith]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North on tabling this amendment. It was so good that I tried to table exactly the same amendment a day after him, but he beat me to it, so he is nimble on his feet as well. We share the concerns that he and the RNIB have raised that the Bill weakens protections for blind and partially sighted voters by removing the limited legal protections that used to exist. Removing the requirement to provide tactile voting devices leaves blind and partially sighted voters somewhat to a postcode lottery.

I see where the Minister is coming from, but I disagree. While she sees it as prescriptive and stifling innovation, I see it as providing a baseline for a level playing field. That does not stop returning officers being innovative. Obviously as technology advances we will come across things that will help us to make voting more accessible for people of many disabilities or impairments. The legislation as it stands creates the risk of a postcode lottery with different systems being used in different areas. Although that might open up to innovation, it risks leaving some blind and partially sighted voters without adequate systems in place to help them to vote in secret and independently.

The RNIB has been consistent and has done excellent reports after every major national election outlining just how few blind and partially sighted voters get the opportunity to vote independently and in secret. It is something that I have raised many times over the years and I had higher expectations for the Bill. I am disappointed that clause 8 does not go far enough. We support the general gist of the clause in terms of making voting more accessible for those with disabilities, but it really only scratches the surface of the quite radical action that is needed to make our democracy more accessible to disabled people.

I share the concerns of the disability charity Sense that the Bill could have the dangerous consequence of removing the fundamental principle that electoral staff must enable voters to vote without any need for assistance. Although a broader duty designed to enable all disabled people to vote is a good thing, the wording of the new duty does not carry over the previous requirement to enable voters to vote without any need for assistance. As a result, I think polling stations will not be required to ensure that disabled people can vote independently. I seek the Minister’s clarification on that.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, though I am greatly disappointed both in the Minister for not having met with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and in my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North. She said that she listened carefully to his argument, and if he had just been more persuasive, this could have been the first time in 38 years when a Minister was persuaded to change her mind. Really, Minister? Let us be honest: this amendment is never going to pass because the Government have an entrenched position on it, and they were never going to listen to reasonable and decent arguments put forward by a reasonable and decent charity.

Fundamentally, voting is a visual exercise, and the frustration and humiliation felt by blind and partially sighted people at their inability to vote independently and in secret has been an open sore for many years. This afternoon, Government Members have talked extensively about secrecy and the privacy of the ballot, but that does not seem to extend to blind and partially sighted people. There are currently 350,000 voters in the UK who cannot vote without having to share their preference with a returning officer or anyone who happens to be within listening distance. Four fifths of blind or partially sighted people said that they were unable to vote independently and in secret.

Respondents to the RNIB survey said such things as:

“The voting booth was right beside the queue for the check in desk; it wasn’t closed off and I had to verbalise my choice to my partner…a person, waiting in the queue beside the booth, audibly sighed. I don’t feel I get privacy”.

Another respondent said:

“My helper disagrees with my vote and I have no way to be sure she voted as I wished”.

Another said that

“it’s a totally humiliating experience from start to finish,”

and the whole thing is predicated on

“assumptions that everyone can see.”

Things are far from perfect at the moment, but the RNIB, which is the UK’s leading sight loss charity, is extremely concerned that the Bill will make a bad situation even worse, as it weakens the protections that exist and could make it even harder for blind or partially sighted people to cast their vote independently and in secret. Could the Minister tell me what experience the Government have and what expertise they drew upon in reaching their conclusion that the RNIB does not have? What sources of evidence did they seek to get to this point that the UK’s leading sight loss charity, which she has not met, does not have?

14:25

[Patrick Grady]

The Minister said that the Government are not removing existing protections, but that is exactly what they are doing. They are literally removing the existing provisions in the RPA and putting in a different clause. She said that the amendment would be needlessly prescriptive, but the amendment simply retains the current legislation and the language that is currently in the Bill, thanks to the ingenuity of those who helped us to draft the amendment.

As all Opposition Members who have spoken have said, the concerns are raised clearly by the RNIB. I refer again to the written evidence that it submitted. In paragraph 2.7 it said that

“in the revised wording proposed, an individual returning officer could in theory decide that even the tactile voting device is not ‘reasonable’ to provide, lessening the accessibility of voting even compared to today.”

To the point that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood made, the RNIB also said:

“Moving the decision regarding what adaptations to provide to returning officer level would result in even more of a patchwork of provision and make it very difficult for blind and partially sighted people to know what to expect and to obtain the adjustments they need, damaging the ability to vote independently even further.”

The amendment would retain the Government’s wording and what is in the existing legislation, so we are providing a double level of support for blind and partially sighted people, and other people who require specific reasonable adjustments. I did not quite catch what the Minister said in response to the intervention on whether she had met with the RNIB. It is understandable that she is new in post and has not had time to meet with it, but I hope that she was not saying that she would not meet with it in future. I hope that she will give an undertaking to do so.

I am disappointed that the Government are not supporting the amendment, and I think that blind and partially sighted people who are following these proceedings would also be disappointed if we did not test the will of the Committee by pressing the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 17

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Rebecca Harris.)

14:25

Adjourned till Thursday 21 October at half-past Eleven o’clock.

Written evidence to be reported to the House

EB06 Antisemitism Policy Trust

EB07 Royal National Institute of Blind People, Age UK, Business Disability Forum, Leonard Cheshire, Sense & Royal National Institute for Deaf People (joint submission)

EB08 Law Society of Scotland (further submission)

EB09 British in Europe

Elections Bill (Seventh sitting)

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Sir Edward Leigh, Christina Rees

† Anderson, Fleur (Putney) (Lab)

† Badenoch, Kemi (Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)

† Bell, Aaron (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)

† Bristow, Paul (Peterborough) (Con)

† Clarkson, Chris (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)

† Furniss, Gill (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)

† Gibson, Peter (Darlington) (Con)

† Grady, Patrick (Glasgow North) (SNP)

† Harris, Rebecca (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Hollern, Kate (Blackburn) (Lab)

† Kruger, Danny (Devizes) (Con)

† Mayhew, Jerome (Broadland) (Con)

† O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)

† Randall, Tom (Gedling) (Con)

† Shelbrooke, Alec (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)

† Smith, Cat (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)

† Smith, Nick (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)

Adam Mellows-Facer, Chris Stanton, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 19 October 2021

(Morning)

[Sir Edward Leigh in the Chair]

Elections Bill

09:25

[The Chair]

Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to [e-mail].

We now resume line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room, shows the order in which selected amendments will be debated. I remind Members that decisions on amendments do not necessarily take place in the order they are debated; it happens in the order they appear on the amendment paper. Members who wish to press a grouped amendment to a Division should indicate that they wish to do so when speaking to it.

We now return to where we left off on 22 September, with amendments to schedule 1. I remind Members that we have already debated clause 1 stand part, and therefore it is not orderly to open up a further debate on the principle of voter identification. I expect focused debates on the amendments in question.

Schedule 1

Voter identification

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 54, in schedule 1, page 75, line 9, at end insert—

“(1HA) In this rule a ‘specified document’ also means a poll card.”

This amendment would enable someone to vote by presenting their poll card as an alternative to photo ID.

To recap from where we left off, the Opposition feel that there is no need for the reforms listed in the Bill. They will reduce people’s ability to vote, they will suppress voting and they are disproportionate to the risks identified. They will have a huge impact on councils, be very unwieldy, potentially have an impact on frontline services delivered by councils and be very expensive.

The Government’s own pilot programmes threw up many issues regarding the ability to vote in different circumstances. Different trials were used, including on the use of a polling card, which showed many ways in which barriers to voting can be overcome—not the ways that appear in the Bill. There are also questions about whether people will be turned away on polling day, and that is why the amendment would include the use of a polling card.

To explain the context, several of the pilot schemes in 2018 and 2019 that were commissioned by the Government asked voters to bring their polling card as a form of identification, or some form of photo ID if they did not have it. The results make for interesting reading. In the 2018 voter ID pilot in Swindon, 95% of voters produced their polling card instead of another form of ID. It was much more accessible to them, and Swindon recorded the lowest percentage of voters not returning with correct ID of all the 2018 pilots, at 0.06%. The Watford pilot saw 87% of voters produce their polling card instead of an alternative form of ID, and only 0.2% of voters did not return with the correct ID.

The poll card pilots in 2019 recorded lower percentages of voters being turned away than the photo ID or mixed ID and polling card models. In the poll card pilots in Mid Sussex, North West Leicestershire and Watford, 93% of voters produced a poll card instead of the alternative form of ID. It is clearly highly preferential for voters, and we want to make voting as easy as possible while making it safe and maintaining integrity.

The impact assessment to the Bill states that the implementation of voter ID could cost up to £180 million over 10 years. As we heard in the evidence sessions, that is not entirely known because not all councils have given in assessments. They do not know how many staff it will take or what the cost will be. Of that total, £80 million could be spent on the updated polling cards, which will notify voters of the new requirements. The proposal is to move to an A4 polling card, to be posted in an envelope. If that much is being spent on polling cards, why not use them at the polling station?

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that, notwithstanding what she said about safety and making it easy, she has not addressed the security element of knowing the person who turns up is the person named on the polling card? In many cases, polling cards can be stolen. I am thinking in particular of when they are posted to pigeonholes in higher education institutions. That has been a real problem in previous elections, and the Opposition’s amendment does not address that.

[Fleur Anderson]

The issue is parity with postal votes. If someone is to have a postal vote, they need to prove that they are living at the relevant address. That applies to polling cards as well; there is consistency.

The hon. Gentleman says that things can be stolen from a higher educational establishment, but that issue should be addressed by the establishment. The same could happen to postal votes, which would be a big concern. Making polling cards safe would be the same as making postal votes safe, so why not use polling cards?

[Aaron Bell]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again. The difference, of course, is that a postal vote requires a signature. Someone could literally take a polling card out of another person’s pigeonhole and present themselves at a polling station saying, “I am Joe Bloggs.” They would be given a vote. That is how things are at the moment, and that is what we think needs to change.

[Fleur Anderson]

When someone is applying for a polling card, they have to prove that they live at the relevant address. The overall issue is that voting is reduced; people might not necessarily want to go to vote if they find it at all hard. On polling day, we and other people will go to people’s houses, knock on their doors and say, “You can go down and vote.” Despite all the advertising that will happen ahead of time, they will say, “Oh, I don’t have my photographic ID—I haven’t yet got it.” We saw from the pilots how things could be so much easier.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady recognise, like me, that one of the most common experiences on the doorstep is someone saying that they have lost the polling card itself and have seen that as an entry into voting? Nine times out of 10, when someone has lost something it has been the card itself. I say to them, “You don’t need that—you just need to say your name and address.” Has she had that experience?

[Fleur Anderson]

Different people will have different ID. If we open up the forms of ID that people can take, we make it more likely that they will vote. Many people will have lost their photo ID. Some people do misplace their polling card in their pile of post and so do not have it to hand. We can say at the moment that they can just go down to the polling station, but the Bill introduces an extra barrier of people having to find their photographic ID—their passport or driving licence. If a polling card is a high barrier, photographic ID is even higher. My amendment would lower the barriers to voting and enable more people to get involved in democracy, which in the end would make decisions better. The Bill would increase the barriers.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I have been reflecting on what my hon. Friend has been saying. I recently had to send off my driving licence to update my address, and that happens to have coincided with the expiry of my passport. Normally I have two forms of photo ID, but at the moment I do not. Could this legislation not end up affecting people who would normally have forms of ID and therefore would not necessarily apply for the voter card, but who due to circumstances may occasionally disenfranchise themselves accidentally?

[Fleur Anderson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are many circumstances in which someone might just not have that photographic ID to hand. My children go off, use their photographic ID in a nightclub and do not return with it. There are so many reasons why it might be hard to find that photographic ID. If people find it hard to locate their polling card on the day—I accept that sometimes they do—they will find it even harder to find their photographic ID.

This amendment is so important. The polling card would give people huge reassurance that they will be able to go down and vote. If the amendment is not agreed to, that will be taken away. The amendment is logical and supported by plenty of evidence from the pilot schemes themselves. I urge the Minister to support it.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Kemi Badenoch)]

If I may, Sir Edward, I want to take time to acknowledge the tragic loss of Sir David Amess. He was a fellow Essex MP to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point. He was a truly beloved friend and colleague who served both Parliament and Southend West for nearly four decades with dedication and care.

It is particularly poignant that we should be debating the Elections Bill at this point. The act of violence that occurred on Friday was abhorrent. Violence and intimidation cannot be tolerated in any circumstance and must have no place in our public life. No one should feel afraid to participate in our democracy or to represent their community, and tackling intimidation in public life is a top priority for the Government. There are measures in the Bill that seek to introduce a new electoral sanction against anyone found guilty of intimidating a candidate or elected representative, but this is a problem that no one measure alone will address. That sanction is just one part of a much wider effort by the Government to tackle intimidation and violence in public life.

Amendment 54 would allow a voter to use their poll card as a form of identification under the new system being introduced by the Bill. The amendment effectively defeats the purpose of the Bill. We cannot agree to it because the requirement to provide a form of photographic identification is the best way to secure the electoral system against fraud and to stamp out the potential for it to take place at polling stations in elections.

My hon. Friends have made the argument already, but I should also say that when evaluating the security strengths and weaknesses of each pilot model the Electoral Commission found that

“the photo identification only model has the greatest security strengths compared with the other models”.

A poll card can easily be intercepted, particularly for those living in shared accommodation, and so cannot be used as a form of identification. It is simply not secure enough. That is why we are requiring voters to provide photographic identification.

[The Chair]

Before we continue the debate, I echo what the Minister said on behalf of all members of the Committee about our colleague Sir David Amess. I entered Parliament with him 38 years ago, with over 100 MPs. Many of them rose to great distinction; at least two became Prime Minister. Sadly, there were only three of us left from that intake, and there are now only two. I say to Back-Bench Members that the career of David Amess shows that it is wonderful to be a Member of Parliament and to be a Back Bencher, even for your whole career, so keep campaigning, intervening and talking about the causes that you hold dear.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I was inspired to say a few words, not least by your intervention, Sir Edward. I pay tribute to both Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire, whom I held in the highest regard. I express my condolences to everyone affected by their loss, and may they both rest in peace.

I was also inspired to speak by the contribution from the hon. Member for Devizes about people who, when we are out doing our knock-ups on polling day, say, “I’ve forgotten my poll card.”

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

Peterborough.

[Patrick Grady]

I do beg your pardon—it was the hon. Member for Peterborough. They will need to fix the lighting for the next round of parliamentary photographs. I do apologise, but the point stands that it is an experience that we have all had. We knock on the door and people say, “I’ve lost my poll card. How can I vote now?”. Currently, we can reassure them by saying, “You don’t need your poll card. Simply identify who you are and your name will be ticked off the list.” That shows the attachment that people have to their poll card. A lot of people think that their poll card is required as a form of ID to vote. As campaigners standing at polling stations, we see people turning up to vote and bringing their poll card with them because of the attachment that they have to it as a document. It helps to inspire their right to vote, so in that sense it works in both directions.

Now when we are on the doorstep, we will have to say to voters, “You need to bring a form of identification with you to vote.” Under the schedule, that has to be a particular form of voter identification. If we were able to say, “You’ve got your poll card. That’s great. You can take that down. That will verify your identity and you’ll be able to take part in the poll,” that would make it even easier for people to comply with the legislation that is under consideration.

On the notion that people could go around harvesting poll cards from university dockets—not to go back to the original clause, Sir Edward—we have heard that instances of that are extremely few. It is already a crime. If someone turns up with more than one poll card, that is personation. I have every faith that in our current electoral system, individual polling clerks will realise, if a voter turns up with two cards, that they are only one person, and they will not be allowed to cast two votes. They would there and then be done, and were it determined that a candidate had been responsible for encouraging them to do that, the candidate would be disqualified from the election.

The amendment, and those that we will discuss shortly, would help as many people as possible to comply with the new requirement that people have a form of identification in order to cast their vote. Opposition Members are trying to expand people’s opportunities to comply with that requirement, and the Government’s opposing it demonstrates what the real intent is behind the clause and the Bill as a whole, which is to make it more difficult for people to vote, which is a dangerous route to go down.

[Fleur Anderson]

I echo your words, Sir Edward, and those of the Minister, about Sir David Amess. I send my sincere condolences to his family, his staff and his constituents. We all feel his loss greatly. Sir David chaired many debates that I took part in. As a new MP, I do not know an enormous number of MPs, but I felt that I knew Sir David, so that was the measure of him.

I am disappointed that the Government will not accept the amendment, but I urge the Minister to please look into and assess the impact on voting when the Bill comes into force. It will have a big impact. Can we please continue with the pilot so that we can assess the impact of not being able to use a polling card, and keep the door open to make sure that there is the potential for everyone to vote by using a polling card?

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 12

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[Fleur Anderson]

I beg to move amendment 55, in schedule 1, page 75, line 9, at end insert—

“(1HA) In this rule a ‘specified document’ also means a utility bill dated within 3 months of the date of the poll.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 56, in schedule 1, page 75, line 9, at end insert—

“(1HA) In this rule a ‘specified document’ also means a valid bank or building society debit card or credit card.”

Amendment 57, in schedule 1, page 75, line 9, at end insert—

“(1HA) In this rule a ‘specified document’ also means a birth certificate.”

Amendment 58, in schedule 1, page 75, line 9, at end insert—

“(1HA) In this rule a ‘specified document’ also means any of the following documents (in whatever form issued to the holder)—

(a) a driving licence;

(b) a birth certificate;

(c) a marriage or civil partnership certificate;

(d) an adoption certificate;

(e) the record of a decision on bail made in respect of the voter in accordance with section 5(1) of the Bail Act 1976;

(f) a bank or building society cheque book;

(g) a mortgage statement dated within 3 months of the date of the poll;

(h) a bank or building society statement dated within 3 months of the date of the poll;

(i) a credit card statement dated within 3 months of the date of the poll;

(j) a council tax demand letter or statement dated within 12 months of the date of the poll;

(k) a P45 or P60 form dated within 12 months of the date of the poll;

(l) a standard acknowledgement letter (SAL) issued by the Home Office for asylum seekers;

(m) a trade union membership card;

(n) a library card;

(o) a pre-payment meter card;

(p) a National Insurance card;

(q) a workplace ID Card.”

[Fleur Anderson]

Amendments 55 to 58 include other forms of identification that could be used to prove a voter’s identity. They would include utility bills, bank or debit cards, birth certificates and other forms of non-photographic ID as acceptable types of identification that a voter may produce to obtain a ballot under schedule 1.

The Minister has stated in support of voter ID that we already ask people to prove who they are in order to collect a parcel from the post office or to rent a car. The list of identity documents accepted at the post office for picking up a parcel includes non-photographic ID such as credit or debit cards, cheque books and utility bills. As the Government have indicated, it seems nonsensical not to extend that to voting. Instead, we should help to enable as many people as possible to get involved in our democratic processes.

The Minister might be interested to hear that half of US states with voter ID requirements allow non-photographic ID. She might also be aware that the Pickles report, “Securing the ballot”, recommended:

“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.”

It is estimated that 10% of people who do not have photographic ID have a birth certificate. The Government have chosen the strictest form of ID despite their own review, led by Lord Pickles, suggesting that non-photographic ID such as a utility bill would be acceptable. This is all about what is proportionate.

When it introduced voter ID, Northern Ireland did not initially require solely photographic ID. It did not leap straight to that highest barrier of ID. Elections took place for almost 20 years with a less stringent ID requirement. I urge colleagues to consider the amendments. They are logical and fair, bring the response to concerns about elections into proportion, and are in line with best practice.

09:45

[Kemi Badenoch]

The amendment would allow a voter to use a utility bill, a debit or credit card or a birth certificate as a form of identification under the new system being introduced by the Bill. I disagree with the hon. Lady’s arguments. The threshold for picking up parcels should not be the same as for voting, which is far more important.

[Patrick Grady]

One of the key arguments for introducing the principle of voter identification was that people needed to show ID when they were picking up a parcel from the post office. These are precisely the kinds of identification that people need to pick up a parcel at the post office. I understand the argument that people might go around harvesting poll cards, but is the Minister seriously suggesting that there is a lot of harvesting of bank cards and birth certificates going on that would make these really unreliable forms of identification at a polling station?

[Kemi Badenoch]

What the hon. Gentleman has said does not negate my argument. We are talking about the threshold and we are talking about photographic identification. All these things might meet the threshold for picking up a parcel, but we are making the threshold for elections tighter than that. I made the same arguments when talking to amendment 54.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

We keep hearing this argument about what is going on in America, which is on the other side of the Atlantic.

Is my hon. Friend aware of this point? I would just warn that it is from Wikipedia:

“Netherlands: The registration office of each municipality in the Netherlands maintains a registration of all residents. Every eligible voter receives a personal polling notification by mail some weeks before the election, indicating the polling station of the voter’s precinct. Voters must present their polling notification and a piece of photo ID (passport, identity card, or drivers license (a passport or ID is compulsory from the age of 14)). Such photo ID may be expired by not by more than five years.”

Is an argument constantly focusing on America not slightly trying to muddy the waters?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention; I was not aware of that information, which is very helpful. It shows that the evidence we have gathered and the basis for the Bill is correct. As I set out in my response to amendment 54 about pilots, photographic identification is by far the most secure method of those piloted and I cannot agree to amendments that seek to weaken that protection.

[Cat Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I have finished.

[The Chair]

You can make a speech.

[Cat Smith]

I had not intended to give a speech, but I want to raise the point that when we look at international comparisons, it is important to find countries that reflect our country. The reason America is used as an example is that the United States does not have a national, free, state-issued ID card, unlike the Netherlands, which the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell used as an example just now, where there is a state ID card, issued by the state, for free, to every citizen. Although he is indeed correct that America is on the other side of the Atlantic—I thank him for that geography lesson—it is used as an example because it has a similar policy around state ID cards.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[The Chair]

Make a speech.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

The hon. Lady said that identity cards do not exist in this country, but of course the information from the Netherlands also refers to the fact that a driving licence or passport is also acceptable.

[The Chair]

Thank you for that speech.

[Patrick Grady]

I just want to expand slightly on the point I made in my intervention. If the opposition to the use of poll cards in the discussion on the previous amendment was because of the risk of harvesting and the lack of verification to go with the issuing of a poll card to ensure it matches the person who is carrying it, I do not see how that argument can be applied to the forms of identification listed in the amendment from the Labour party. All those require some form of external verification and, in many cases, someone else to verify the identity and the physical appearance of the person being identified in the document in question—unless there is evidence that we have not heard during our discussions: about the mass forgery of birth certificates, marriage certificates, paper driving licences or adoption certificates.

In fact, in many cases the forgery of such documents is already a crime, so if someone were to try to impersonate another voter by producing a forged or stolen birth certificate, they would be guilty of two crimes: personation under the existing electoral registration measures and forging important documents.

Perhaps the Minister and hon. Members who oppose the amendment are starting to question the integrity of all the organisations listed in the amendment who issue these forms of identification, such as banks and building societies who issue mortgage statements.

[Aaron Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for acknowledging the force of our arguments on the previous amendment, which of course he voted for. Is it not the case that people could still vote for others in their own household? That is of concern to Government Members. For example, if someone knew that their son would not vote, they could happily take one of those identity documents with them—they have no photos on them—and present themselves at the polling station. Without that check from photographic identification, security is still threatened.

[Patrick Grady]

I am sorry—they absolutely could not. First, I do not accept the force of the previous argument, although I accept the Committee’s decision to reject the amendment. Secondly, there is no way that someone from the same household could turn up because, by definition, they would be voting at the same polling station with the same polling clerks and with the same party candidates and activists standing outside. If one person turned up with two birth certificates, utility bills or whatever, that would be a clear case of personation. I have sufficient confidence in the integrity of our current system to trust the poll clerks on duty in a station to identify that same person from the same household trying to vote on behalf of two people.

I find it slightly ironic that my parliamentary pass, issued to me by the House of Commons on account of my being elected three times by the electors of Glasgow North, lets me get on a plane, and I can cast votes on legislation with it, but I do not think it is good enough to vote in a general election under the Bill. I am therefore happy to support the Labour party’s amendments.

[Fleur Anderson]

We would like to press the group of amendments to a vote, if it is possible to vote for them together.

[The Chair]

I am afraid the rules are that you must have a single vote on each amendment.

[Fleur Anderson]

I would like to press amendment 56, then. I have nothing further to add, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 55.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 56, in schedule 1, page 75, line 9, at end insert—

“(1HA) In this rule a “specified document” also means a valid bank or building society debit card or credit card.”—(Fleur Anderson.)

Division 13

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[Fleur Anderson]

I beg to move amendment 62, in schedule 1, page 82, line 4, at end insert—

“Reports on voter identification and turnout

35A The Secretary of State must prepare and publish reports on the effect of the voter identification requirements in this Schedule on turnout—

(a) across the electorate,

(b) in minority groups,

(c) among disabled people,

(d) among young people.

35B The Secretary of State must publish a report under paragraph (35B)—

(a) no later than 31 July each year, and

(b) in the 90 days following a general election.”

This is a highly reasonable amendment, which I hope will be supported. I also hope that all hon. Members would want to see the effects and outcomes of what the Bill does. The Secretary of State would be required to prepare and publish reports in a timely fashion on the effect of voter identification requirements in the schedule—in particular those where civil society groups have raised a large amount of concern—so that we can learn the effect of the measures in real time. The amendment would not undermine the fundamentals of the Bill; it just says, “We should report on it and learn from it in a timely fashion.” I hope that it will be accepted.

[Kemi Badenoch]

We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. The Bill already outlines that there must be three evaluations of the effect of a requirement to show identification on voting, and those will consider the effect of the new policy on electors’ applications for a ballot paper. Committing to further evaluations annually and in perpetuity would be disproportionate and an inappropriate use of taxpayers’ money.

The Government will consider how best to gather information relating to the impact of the policy on all parts of the electorate. Although some data will be collected at polling stations under new rule 40B, and used for evaluations, it is important to note that it would be inappropriate to collect information on protected characteristics at the polling station directly. Electors would not expect to have to answer questions about their race, sexual orientation or gender identity before receiving their ballot and might not feel comfortable doing so. We will consider how best to gather that information without such intrusion.

[Patrick Grady]

This is a very reasonable request from the Opposition. One of the most robust evidence sessions we had was when we discussed the impact of the Bill on minority groups and people with protected characteristics. I would have thought it would be in the Government’s interests to try to gather evidence to show the minimal impact—or indeed the positive impact—they expect the Bill and the requirement to show voter identification at the polls will have on those groups.

The Labour party makes a perfectly reasonable request. As the Minister said, there is already a certain amount of evaluation built into the Bill; an additional round of evaluation is not going to cause too much difficulty. No one is suggesting that people should be quizzed before the ballot box. There are perfectly acceptable and valid ways to conduct research, at academic or Government level, without having to put people under pressure at the moment they are carrying out their votes. We have seen some of that research already, as some of it was commissioned to help inform the Bill. The Opposition are entitled to make the points they have and can expect our support if they push the matter to a vote.

[Fleur Anderson]

This is the third Public Bill Committee I have taken part in, and no amendment has yet been accepted. I tabled 200 amendments to the Environment Bill. Hoping against hope, even when I stood up for the last time to speak to the 200th amendment, I thought that might be the one to be accepted. What is the point of sitting in Committee, going through a Bill line by line, for the Minister to say, “Don’t worry—we are going to look into this”?

There are ways to find out the impact on different parts of the electorate. There are definitely ways to find out the impact very quickly after an election, so that we can learn as we go on and prepare for the next election. I am very disappointed that this measure will not be taken up. It leaves the electorate wondering what the Government have to hide.

[The Chair]

I have been attending these Committees for 38 years and no Government, Labour or Conservative, have ever accepted any amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 14

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[The Chair]

We have now disposed of all the amendments to schedule 1. Unless a Member indicates to me that they wish to make detailed points on schedule 1 that have not been covered in the debate so far, I propose to put the question that schedule 1 be the first schedule of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

Restriction of period for which person can apply for postal vote

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

09:59

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clause 2 is essential to strengthen and improve the current security of the postal ballot. The clause, and associated schedule 2, will require postal voters in Great Britain to make a fresh postal vote application after a maximum of three years of being registered as a postal voter if they want to continue to vote by post at future elections. That is one of a number of measures in the Bill that implement recommendations in the 2016 Pickles report into electoral fraud, and it is needed to address documented weaknesses in the current absent voting arrangements.

The Electoral Commission’s winter tracker for 2021 found that one in five people considers postal voting to be unsafe, and the witnesses who gave evidence to this Committee also highlighted that absent voting can be particularly subject to fraud and abuse. Currently, an elector may have a postal vote on an indefinite basis as long as they provide a signature sample every five years. Requiring an elector to reapply for a postal vote at least every three years will enable the electoral registration officer regularly to assess their application and confirm that they are still an eligible elector. The measure will also ensure that electors’ details are kept up to date and reduce the waste and cost of postal votes being sent to out-of-date addresses, where they may also be vulnerable to fraudulent abuse.

By requiring each postal voter’s signature to be refreshed more frequently, we will also reduce the likelihood of a postal vote being rejected because of the elector’s handwriting changing over time. Further, asking that electors confirm their preferred arrangements at least once during the life of a Parliament provides an opportunity for someone who may have been initially convinced or coerced into having a postal vote to break out of that situation and protect their vote from being stolen.

Existing long-term postal voters will benefit from the transitional provisions in the Bill that allow them to maintain their preferred voting arrangement, and they will have advance notice of the change so that they can prepare ahead of the deadline. Electoral registration officers will be required to send a reminder to existing postal voters in advance of the date that they will cease to have a postal vote and to provide information on how to reapply.

Schedule 2 also provides for postal vote registrations for the maximum period to cease on 31 January in the year in question, which will give electors time to apply for a fresh postal vote ahead of scheduled elections in May that year if they wish to vote by post. For overseas electors, we are aligning the maximum period for which they may hold a postal vote with their registration cycle, and have extended that period so that it may also not exceed three years.

Those safeguards will not only protect against the abuse of postal voting but also, I hope, raise the level of confidence in absent voting so that no one has to feel concerned that their vote could be stolen or abused.

[Fleur Anderson]

We will vote to remove the requirement for the reapplication for postal voting every three years and return to the status quo of postal votes lasting an indefinite period, because we believe that the requirement is disproportionate, costly and confusing. We strongly oppose moves to force those using a postal vote to reapply.

Clause 2 is another Government provision that has left me scratching my head and very concerned. These pointless changes will make the process of voting more complex and bureaucratic, forcing lifetime postal voters to reapply every three years. The Minister may think that mandating re-registration every three years is making our electoral system more secure from postal vote fraud, but that is mistaken and based on flawed assumptions about where postal vote fraud is happening. It is at variance from what we heard in evidence.

In evidence, we heard about the highly concerning case of postal vote fraud in the 2004 local elections in Birmingham. However, the main concerns raised by the commissioner included the deadline for postal voting packs being close to the election—six working days before—and the lack of checks on whether applications were made by the named voter, which made it difficult to detect fraud. Clause 2 does not address that.

Following that case, the Electoral Commission made a number of recommendations, including using personal identifiers for postal votes, moving the deadline for applications from six to 11 working days before polling day and making falsely applying for a postal vote an offence. The Electoral Administration Act 2006 was passed by the Labour Government in response to criticisms and has addressed a number of those concerns already, including a system of personal identifiers for postal ballots. What is the evidence that clause 2 will address the postal fraud that has been identified in the cases about which we have heard? The measure is not based on good evidence.

The second thing we are deeply concerned about is that the changes will reduce flexibility for voters and risk imposing yet another barrier to voting, which damages our democracy. Ministers should direct their energy towards changes that make voting easier, not putting up barriers. The change will suppress voting and erase the positive improvement in postal voting seen during the pandemic. It is unnecessarily bureaucratic.

We have seen a gradual rise in the use of postal voting over recent years, as an easy and flexible alternative for those who prefer not to visit the polls in person, even more so during the pandemic. In 2001, 1.8 million postal votes were issued; in 2012, 6.3 million; and at the last general election in 2019, 7.3 million postal votes were issued. As has been mentioned, in his review, Lord Pickles concluded that

“the availability of postal voting encourages many legitimate electors to use their vote effectively”.

But forcing people to keep reregistering so frequently—too frequently—could risk disenfranchising people who are not aware until it is too late that the rules are changing and that they need to reapply for their postal vote, when they have only had to do it once before. Changing the rules is confusing.

We oppose moves to change the law to limit who can hand in postal votes at polling stations. That change could create barriers for some voters who genuinely need assistance. My other concern is the sheer cost; as we mentioned, the Cabinet Office’s own impact assessment published with the Bill estimates the cost of the new requirement for postal voters to register every three years rather than five at between £6 million and £15 million. This will cost millions of pounds, and do we even need it? That estimate is in addition to existing costs and is based just on the cost of sending out the additional letters, let alone the extra administration and advertising costs. Can the Minister explain how she will pay for those additional costs?

There is also a capacity issue for local councils. It will inevitably prove hugely burdensome on local authority election teams, who are already overburdened and under-resourced. The Association of Electoral Administrators agrees with that assessment. It believes that reapplying for a postal vote every three years rather than five will bring an “additional burden to Electoral Registration Officers, creating more regular peaks of demand.”

There is the confusion between different election systems in the devolved nations Currently, neither Scotland nor Wales has diverged from existing legislation on postal voting. Postal votes on demand are available indefinitely, as they currently are in England, and signature refreshes are also required every five years. If the current measures in the Bill are approved, a complex, messy system of divergent requirements for different sets of elections will be created. I cannot imagine having to explain that multiple times on the doorstep, and for councils to have to explain that: one local election will be like this, but a general election will be like that. It will be very confusing.

Confusion stops people voting and gets in the way of our democracy. For instance, someone who has chosen to vote by post permanently in Scotland and Wales will be required to reapply every three years for their postal votes for the UK parliamentary elections, and will also separately be required to refresh their signature for postal votes in devolved elections every five years. It will create a huge administrative and bureaucratic nightmare that will be highly confusing for voters, who do not look in as much detail as we do at postal votes and when to sign for them and apply for them. I have yet to hear the Minister’s solution to that, and I hope to hear it now.

The clauses are pointless and arbitrary; they will not achieve what the Government is setting out to achieve. As usual in the Bill, they are disproportionate. There is very little evidence that they are necessary. They will hit the already disenfranchised the hardest. They will cost the taxpayer millions of pounds, pile the pressure on our already overstretched electoral staff and conflict with the frontline service delivery of our local councils. I urge colleagues not to let the clauses stand.

[Patrick Grady]

I will echo many of the hon. Lady’s points. The renewal of a postal vote comes up on an annual basis when the check of who is registered at the household comes through the post. It indicates whether electors are postal voters. If they wanted to change at that point, the opportunity would be there. But the Bill is putting on a separate new requirement. When a voter moves house, a fresh check is done—I know that from recent personal experience. When a voter moves house, they are asked to reapply for a postal vote at their new address.

The move to expand postal voting over the years has undoubtedly helped to increase turnout and participation. The Labour spokesperson explained that, where there have been difficulties, measures have been taken to stop them. That is not an argument to make it more difficult in general for people to apply for and exercise the right to vote by post.

The point about the risk of procedural complication is particularly acute. There is an interesting question about why the renewal has been set for every three years rather than every two, four or five years. Maybe the Minister can explain the evidence base for that when summing up, because that would help to align it with the parliamentary cycle of elections, although there is no cycle of elections at the moment—they are just happening on an almost annual basis. The effect of that is the real risk of someone who thinks they are registered for a postal vote actually being caught out because their postal vote expires while they are away for whatever reason has already inspired them to apply for a postal vote. They may then find that yet another snap election has been called and they are left effectively disenfranchised.

I echo the point about divergence across the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute and I have no problem with divergence. We have a solution to people in Scotland getting confused about voting in Westminster elections, which is to stop that from happening and for Scotland to be an independent country. If Members on the other side of the House and indeed our good friends on the Labour Front Bench do not want that to happen, perhaps they need to think about the divergence and different franchises that are being established across the United Kingdom, and about the different voting systems and the increase in differences. Quite how that makes a case for a strong and stable Union—well, it is not a case for me to make. We fully support the Labour party in opposing this clause and I look forward to hearing how the Minister responds to the points.

[Paul Bristow]

In response to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Putney, I would argue that this change is perfectly reasonable. If someone is trying to renew something as precious as their postal vote, it is perfectly reasonable to be asked to do that every three years. As it happens, I personally think it should be done every year. Households have to renew who is on the electoral register every year. It is not that much of a leap to apply yearly for something as precious as a postal vote. This is a perfectly reasonable request.

I would like to draw Members’ attention to the evidence we heard from the chief executive of Peterborough City Council. It was argued earlier that some of the restrictions about who could hand in postal votes to a polling station were unreasonable. I would ask, what is reasonable about people walking up to polling stations, indeed to the town hall the night before, with plastic bags full of postal votes?

[Cat Smith]

I thought I might help out the hon. Gentleman, because I think he might be straying into the next schedule to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman said that he thought that he would like to see postal votes renewed every year. Why did he not table an amendment to the Bill on that?

[Paul Bristow]

Because we have to start somewhere. As a start, considering the evidence and arguments we have had, renewing every three years is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask someone to do. We should look at what happens after three years and maybe in the future we can see where we are. It is perfectly reasonable to ask someone to apply for something as precious as a postal vote every three years. We have talked about how important the privilege of voting is. If it is important, it is perfectly reasonable to fill out a form every three years. Evidence from my constituency suggests that we have wards in Peterborough that are twice as high as the national average for registered postal votes. I am not saying that that is done for any particularly nefarious reason, but clearly considerable postal vote harvesting and postal vote recruitment have been seen in Peterborough.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recall the reasons Lord Pickles gave in his 2016 report in favour of this measure? He said, first, that it

“would provide an opportunity for up-to-date checking of the application against other data at the local authority,”

secondly, that

“it would help to reduce scope for redundant postal votes to continue to go to an address which the elector has left”,

and, thirdly,

“it also provides anyone with a postal vote who feels they are subject to coercion or undue influence with an opportunity to cease having a remote vote.”

Does he agree that the third of those reasons is the most important?

10:15

[Paul Bristow]

I absolutely do. The evidence comes from Peterborough, Tower Hamlets and many other parts of the country. It is not isolated to a handful of local authorities; it is much more widespread than Opposition Members would believe. A lot of the evidence we heard in Committee about fraud—Opposition Members have made this argument time and time again—was that the issue was postal votes. Here is an opportunity to try to do something about it, and I urge hon. Members to support this element of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I will respond briefly to Opposition Members’ points, which can be summarised as, “This new measure is burdensome.” I thought it would be helpful to let the hon. Member for Putney know that any additional costs on local authorities or electoral returning officers relating to these measures would be covered under the new burdens doctrine. She also mentioned administrative burdens on devolved Administrations, and the answer to that is that they could easily align what they are doing with what we are doing if they felt it was overly burdensome on them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 3

Handling of postal voting documents by political campaigners

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clause 3 introduces a new criminal offence and bans political campaigners from handling postal voting documents issued to others. This is designed to address activities and behaviour that have been a cause for concern at previous elections. The Pickles report into electoral fraud found that there had been episodes where party activists had used the ploy of canvassing or answering inquiries from voters about completing postal votes to collect or harvest the votes of other postal voters. There is a real risk that voters could be coerced into completing their postal voting statement before handing the ballot paper unmarked to campaigners to be taken away and filled in elsewhere.

The Pickles report also highlighted that concerns have been raised about party activists taking completed ballots and then choosing not to submit them if they are not completed in a way that suits the campaigner’s aims. Clearly, these are very concerning matters and show that there are weaknesses in the current arrangements that have been, and could be again, exploited by persons seeking to undermine the integrity of the electoral system. That is why the Government in their manifesto committed to stopping postal vote harvesting.

The Electoral Commission’s code of conduct for campaigners is clear that campaigners should never touch or handle anyone else’s postal ballot paper.

[Paul Bristow]

Hear, hear!

[Kemi Badenoch]

However, the code does not have legal force. We believe it is time to put it on a statutory footing, and make it a criminal offence for political campaigners to handle postal votes.

The clause sets out details of the postal vote handling offence and makes the offence a “corrupt practice”. Of course, it is perfectly reasonable that a political campaigner might, like many others, want to offer help to a family member, perhaps offering to drop their household’s completed ballots into the post box. This measure makes provision for that, creating exemptions to the offence where the handler is a listed family member or carer of the postal voter. We do not wish to deny legitimate support, but we must be clear, as the Bill is, that systematic collection of votes is unacceptable. This measure will strengthen the integrity of postal voting and give protection to postal voters from those who would seek to subvert the postal voting process.

[Cat Smith]

The official Opposition rise to support that clause 3 stand part of the Bill. Indeed, the advice given by the Electoral Commission is also issued by the Labour party to our own activists, in terms of the rules by which we guide our canvassers, campaigners and candidates not to handle postal vote documents from electors when out canvassing. Fraudulently applying or tampering with or using someone else’s vote—postal vote personation—is already a criminal offence in electoral law; and a person convicted of personation or postal voting offences, which are corrupt practices, can be disqualified from standing for and voting in elections for five years. This proposal is in line with the advice that we give our campaigners and activists already, so we will not oppose clause 3.

[Patrick Grady]

Again, I just want to echo the points made from the Labour Front Bench. This is advice that I think all of us identify as best practice. All of us want to ensure the integrity of the system when we are out and about canvassing our voters, and particularly on polling day, as regards the handling of postal voting documents. I just think it is interesting that we can find points of consensus, and perhaps as we go through the Bill we will find some others. It slightly speaks to points that were raised in evidence and on Second Reading about the need for a far more far-reaching and comprehensive review of electoral legislation, and that is precisely the kind of thing that might have been achieved by more effective prelegislative scrutiny—by a draft Bill and a draft Bill Committee that would have heard from a wide range of stakeholders, that would have taken place over a longer period and that would really have come up with the comprehensive electoral legislation reform for which we have heard there is a need. We all welcome this provision, and we want to see this particular clause proceed, but it is a pity that it is couched among so many other things that we find objectionable and will continue to object to.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Handing in postal voting documents

[Cat Smith]

I beg to move amendment 69, in clause 4, page 8, line 27, at end insert—

“(6) The Secretary of State may not make any regulations using powers under this section unless they have first undertaken a public consultation on a draft of those regulations for a period of not shorter than 28 days.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to conduct a public consultation for at least 28 days before making regulations by virtue of Clause 4 of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Cat Smith]

Clause 4 is about the handing in of postal vote documents—not necessarily by party political campaigners, but by anyone. It is about setting out requirements for the handing in of postal votes to the returning officer and at polling stations, including setting a limit on the number of postal voters on behalf of whom a person may hand in postal votes, and postal votes being rejected if not handed in in accordance with the requirements.

The new rules could create barriers for some voters who genuinely need assistance. For example, the new rules will limit, perhaps, care home staff being able to hand in, say, a dozen postal votes from residents in the care home. This leaves us in the bizarre situation whereby a care home worker could drop a dozen postal votes into a postbox but not hand them in at a polling station, so I raise that as a potential loophole with the Minister. There is something of an inconsistency. As has just been said by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North, perhaps some level of prelegislative scrutiny with a draft Bill could have allowed us to look at ways to deal with such matters. Given that we can find consensus on many issues in relation to elections, we might have been able to iron some of these matters out before we ended up in Committee.

Let me deal with amendment 69. In its current form, the Bill, as I have just set out, contains numerous holes. Our amendment asks the Government to provide draft regulation that would include greater detail about exactly how the new limit would be enforced, and I would like to put a few questions to the Minister. Could she outline whether polling station staff will be asked to enforce the new limit, and if so, how? What level of training does she envisage polling staff will receive in order to be able to, potentially, enforce this legislation?

[Paul Bristow]

I want to repeat the point that I probably made rather presumptuously in my previous remarks. I want to know what the hon. Lady’s thoughts are on the evidence proposed by Gillian Beasley, the chief executive of Peterborough City Council, when she described a practice of people turning up with plastic bags full of postal votes either at polling stations or at the town hall the night before the election. I want to know whether she thinks that a reasonable practice.

[Cat Smith]

That is exactly why prelegislative scrutiny would have been useful. This is about the distinction between political campaigners and voters. There are legitimate reasons why some voters may wish to hand in more than two postal votes at a polling station.

I gave the example of a care home, but equally, in the current context of covid, a family of three may not have posted their postal votes and ask neighbour to deliver them. If two postal votes can be handed in by an individual but three postal votes cannot, and someone turns up with three, how do we know if that third postal vote is an individual postal vote? There are various holes in the legislation. I am putting these questions to the Minister and I hope she will be able to answer them.

For example, with the limit of two postal votes, if someone were to turn up at a polling station with three postal votes to hand in, and they are able to hand in two for other people and one for themselves, how do we know which is which, given that when they are sealed there is no way of identifying whose votes they are? If the person says, “That one is mine. That is my postal vote so I can legitimately hand that in, and these are the two that I can legitimately hand in,” how would a polling clerk know that those were two postal votes that were being handed in on behalf of other people and one that was for that individual, if the envelopes are sealed and there is no way of identifying them? Can the Minister clarify how she envisages a polling clerk can make that assessment?

According to the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill,

“regulations may require a person seeking to hand in a postal voting document to complete a form containing specific information, which the government anticipates would include, among other information, the name(s) of the postal voter(s) whose ballot papers are being handed in. Regulations may make provision to require the “relevant officer” receiving the ballot to reject the document if the person fails to complete the form.”

The Minister will know that, once completed, a postal vote does not have a person’s name on the front of the envelope, for obvious reasons to do with the secrecy of the ballot. How does the Minister see this being enforced or policed? It would be impossible to know if the postal vote being handed in actually belongs to the person recorded on the form.

I leave the Minister with those questions. It would be helpful to have some clarification on these matters, in terms of how the Committee might progress and whether or not to accept this clause as part of the Bill. I draw the distinction between political campaigners, whose actions were the subject of the clause we previously debated and who I believe should be held to rights, and members of the general public, who might be handing in postal votes on behalf of a neighbour or family member, or be a care home worker handing in ballots on behalf of residents of a care home.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Amendment 69 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a public consultation for at least 28 days before making regulations under the provisions in clause 4 of the Bill. The Government will not be accepting the amendment as we believe it would impose an unnecessary administrative burden.

The Government will be required to consult the Electoral Commission on any regulations made under this clause, followed by parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative SI procedure, which answers the hon. Lady’s question about further detail. We have had a similar conversation in earlier Bill Committees, but Parliament would naturally want to ensure that any future changes are appropriate and based on contemporary evidence.

We have been working with the Electoral Commission and electoral stakeholders on the issue of handing in postal votes while developing the legislation. We will continue to consider their inputs, and the needs of voters, in the development of the regulations. With the example that the hon. Lady gave about care homes, I do not believe that that is a loophole. Just as we said earlier in terms of political campaigning, we recognise that there are exceptions, and a carer in a care home would fall into that.

The measures in the Bill to tighten up the current arrangements concerning the handling and handing in of postal votes flow from the report by Sir Eric Pickles into his review of electoral fraud. That review took into account views from a range of persons, including academics and policy-makers; electoral administrators and political parties; and people who have found themselves impacted by real examples of fraud. The review’s findings were informed by a wide range of views. Given that, the Government are not able to accept the amendment.

[The Chair]

Does Patrick Grady wish to comment?

[Patrick Grady]

I would, Sir Edward, seeing as I have been so kindly invited to. Conservative Members are clearly enjoying this riveting debate and it is great to see them engaging with such force and alacrity, as someone used to say. We agree with the points made by the Labour Front Bench. There is a legitimate difference to be made between political operatives such as ourselves, who are trained—or at least ought to be trained—in the process of going out and canvassing and handling electoral documents, and the wider public, who perhaps need to understand a little bit more about the detail.

10:30

The request in amendment 69 for a Government review is perfectly acceptable. It goes back to the point about scrutiny and some of the things that might have been achieved if we had had a bit more prelegislative discussion before the Bill was brought forward. It will not be a surprise to the Committee that the SNP is happy to support the Opposition Front Bench.

[Aaron Bell]

I have been provoked by the hon. Member for Glasgow North to show some more support from the Government side for the clause. Before I do so, I would like to briefly pay my own tribute to Sir David Amess. The first general election I was able to stay up late for the results for was 1992. I did not fully understand the concept of a bellwether seat and all the rest of it, but we were all talking about Basildon for the first hour or so before the result came in, and when it did, we saw his million-watt smile. Twenty-seven years later, when I found myself in this place, that smile was still as bright as ever.

We have lost two very dedicated public servants in Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire. They gave decades of public service to this place and their constituents. What I would say about both of them is that it was always service with a smile.

I welcome the clause. It is a proportionate response to the cases we have seen and the evidence we have heard. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough referred to cases in his constituency. We heard from Peter Golds about what went on in Tower Hamlets. I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister on why the amendment is unnecessary. I will leave it there—to be honest, the hon. Member for Glasgow North just provoked me a little bit. As ever, I think the Government have considered the issue properly. I have listened to the Opposition’s points on prelegislative scrutiny, but the clause is very detailed and the Government have considered all the points that need to be addressed. For that reason, I support it.

[The Chair]

It might be a convenient moment for the Minister to make her clause stand part speech now.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Thank you, Sir Edward. Clause 4 concerns the handing in of postal ballot papers at elections. The clause is closely linked to clause 3, which introduces the new offence banning political campaigners from handling postal votes issued to other persons. Together, these measures address concerns about the harvesting of postal votes and individuals handing in large numbers of postal votes, and reduce opportunities for votes to be stolen.

It will still be permitted for people who are not campaigners to handle and hand in postal voting documents issued to others. However, we believe that it is important to ensure that the arrangements in place governing that process are robust and support the integrity of postal voting. The clause therefore seeks to tighten up the current arrangements concerning the handing in of postal votes. It does so by introducing powers to allow regulations to be made that set out requirements for the handing in of postal votes at elections to returning officers across the UK and at polling stations in Great Britain. That includes setting a limit on the number of postal voters on behalf of whom a person may hand in postal votes, and requiring postal votes to be rejected if not handed in in accordance with the requirements.

We currently envisage that in addition to their own postal vote, an individual will be able to hand in the postal votes of up to two electors, but that will be considered during the process of developing secondary legislation, which I hope the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood will be most interested in and will contribute to.

I note that currently there is no requirement for a record to be kept of persons who have handed in postal votes or of whom those votes belong to. The clause will allow regulations to require persons handing in postal votes to complete a form giving these details, which will help promote compliance with the new requirements and with investigations of allegations of fraud.

It is right that these reasonable limits are introduced on the handing in of postal votes to ensure that the integrity of postal voting is safeguarded. The clause, and the postal vote handling measure in clause 3, are aimed at addressing activities and behaviour that have been cause for concern at past elections. They will give greater confidence in the integrity of the process by preventing an individual from collecting and handing in unlimited numbers of postal votes on polling day to returning officers at polling stations across Great Britain or at the Electoral Office in Northern Ireland.

[Cat Smith]

I am glad that the Minister has raised the issue that I will almost certainly be spending many more hours of my life in a Committee Room ironing out how this stuff works in secondary legislation. My frustration is that so much is not on the face of the Bill and will be decided in secondary legislation in Committee corridors, which, as you, Sir Edward, and members of the Committee have pointed out, does not have the same level of scrutiny as it does on the Floor of the House. Indeed, it is very unusual—I do not think it has ever happened—that an Opposition have amended a piece of legislation in an SI Committee or a Bill Committee and it has been accepted by the Government. It seems somewhat reckless to be legislating on the strength of the Bill as it stands, because it does not have the level of detail that we will clearly need.

I am minded to press my amendment to a vote. Picking up on what the Minister said in her opening remarks about its being an unnecessary administrative burden, there is a huge administrative burden on our electoral officials up and down the country, and the Bill will heap a whole load more tasks on electoral returning officers and registration officers in town halls across the country. In the last five years there has been one piece of legislation after another, putting more and more administrative burdens on electoral returning officers.

I think it is fair to say that our local authorities have had their belts tightened. They have had austerity and cuts, and we are asking fewer and fewer people to do more and more. I want to flag my concerns that electoral administrators are under a lot of pressure and that the Bill is putting additional pressure on them. While it is slightly beyond the scope of my amendment, I will be cheeky and say that the Government really need to look at how we resource local authorities as well.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 15

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Limit on number of electors for whom a proxy can vote

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The purpose of the clause and associated schedule 3 is to strength the current arrangements for proxy voting. Currently, someone can act as a proxy for up to two electors and an unlimited number of close relatives in any constituency in a parliamentary election or any electoral area at a local election. That can give rise to situations where an individual can harvest and cast many proxy votes over which they may have inappropriate influence. It may lead to someone being coerced into appointing a proxy who could then effectively steal their vote.

The Bill introduces a new limit of four on the total number of electors for whom a person may act as proxy in UK Parliament elections or local government elections in England. Within this figure of four, no more than two may be domestic electors—that is, electors who are not overseas electors nor service voters. All four may be overseas electors or service voters.

The approach will tighten up the rules on proxy voting while also providing appropriate support for overseas electors and service voters wishing to appoint a proxy. It will be an offence for an elector to appoint a proxy knowing that the person they are selecting as proxy is already appointed as a proxy for the permitted number of electors. An appointed proxy will also be guilty of an offence if they vote as proxy for more than the permitted number of electors.

Of course, these provisions have been developed to ensure that there are no gaps for those already voting by proxy. Under the Bill, there will be transitional provisions for existing proxy voters, so that they will have advance notice of the change. The current proxy voting rules will continue until a date to be specified in secondary legislation. At that point, electors wanting to continue with a proxy vote arrangement will need to reapply for a proxy vote under the new rules. Electoral registration officers will be required to send a reminder to existing proxy voters in advance of the date they cease to have a proxy vote, and to provide information on how to reapply for a proxy vote.

The Bill will also amend the eligibility requirements to act as a proxy at elections in Northern Ireland by providing that a person must be registered in a register of electors to be eligible to act as proxy. Currently, a proxy is not required to be registered but must meet age and nationality requirements. That will bring elections in Northern Ireland in line with proxy eligibility in Great Britain.

The measures will reduce the risk of fraud and reassure voters that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the integrity and fairness of the proxy voter system. The clause will prevent an individual from casting a potentially unlimited number of proxy votes, over which they could have inappropriate influence.

[Patrick Grady]

I have a couple of questions. The Minister said that it will be an offence if a person knowingly asks to be their proxy someone who already holds the maximum number of proxy votes. How on earth will that be determined? Is there any risk of people being prosecuted when they have, in good faith, asked someone who, whether on purpose or accidentally, is acting in bad faith by securing more proxy votes than the statute allows?

Where did the figure of four come from? Why not three? Why not five? Why not some other figure? What research has the Minister’s Department carried out to determine that four is the optimal and safely manageable number of proxy votes? Is there any evidence that if someone has four proxy votes, they are probably not carrying out personation or any other kind of voter fraud, but if they have five, there is clearly criminal intent, and they must be punished to the full standard of the legislation?

We accept that there is a certain issue around the management of proxy votes, as we heard in evidence, but we need from the Minister a robust defence of the necessity for the provisions. I look forward to hearing that before we determine whether the clause should stand part.

[The Chair]

Does the Minister wish to reply?

[Kemi Badenoch]

Not particularly, no.

[The Chair]

Debates would be a lot shorter if Ministers always said that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Rebecca Harris.)

10:42

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Nationality and Borders Bill (Sixth sitting)

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Sir Roger Gale, †Siobhain McDonagh

Anderson, Stuart (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)

† Baker, Duncan (North Norfolk) (Con)

† Blomfield, Paul (Sheffield Central) (Lab)

† Charalambous, Bambos (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)

† Coyle, Neil (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)

† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)

† Gullis, Jonathan (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)

† Holmes, Paul (Eastleigh) (Con)

† Howell, Paul (Sedgefield) (Con)

† Lynch, Holly (Halifax) (Lab)

† McLaughlin, Anne (Glasgow North East) (SNP)

† McDonald, Stuart C. (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)

† Owatemi, Taiwo (Coventry North West) (Lab)

† Pursglove, Tom (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)

† Richards, Nicola (West Bromwich East) (Con)

† Whittaker, Craig (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

† Wood, Mike (Dudley South) (Con)

Rob Page, Sarah Thatcher, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 19 October 2021

(Afternoon)

[Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]

Nationality and Borders Bill

14:00

[The Chair]

There may be a vote in the Chamber this afternoon. If there is a Division, we will suspend for 15 minutes.

Clause 2

Historical inability of unmarried fathers to transmit citizenship

Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

I will continue my remarks from the point at which I left off. One of the general criteria is that the person has not previously been a British overseas territories citizen. The registration provisions are intended to cover those who missed out on becoming a citizen by virtue of the fact that their parents were not married; they will not benefit those who acquired BOTC status in some other way and subsequently renounced or were deprived of that status.

The provisions created by this clause are detailed, as we need to cater for changes over time to British nationality legislation. It may help if I summarise who is covered by each provision. Proposed new section 17C of the British Nationality Act 1981 will apply to those who would have been entitled to be registered as a BOTC under the 1981 Act if their mother had been married to their natural father at the time of their birth. It allows the Home Secretary to waive the need for parental consent where that would normally be required. A good character requirement must be met if there is one for the provision that the person could have applied under had their parents been married.

Proposed new section 17D of the 1981 Act will apply to those who would automatically have become a British dependent territories citizen or BOTC at birth under the 1981 Act had their mother been married to their natural father at the time of their birth. Both parents must consent to a child under 18 making an application for registration, but this requirement can be waived where one parent has died, or in special circumstances.

Proposed new section 17E is for those who were citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies immediately before the 1981 Act came into force, and who would automatically have become a British dependent territories citizen, and then a BOTC under the 1981 Act, had their mother been married to their natural father at the time of their birth.

Proposed new section 17F covers three groups. The first is those who were British subjects or citizens of the UK and colonies by virtue of birth in a former colony, and who would not have lost that status on that country’s independence if their parents had been married. The second group is those who were British subjects before 1 January 1949 and would have become citizens of the UK and colonies on that date if their parents had been married. This would affect, for example, a person born in Canada whose father was born in Bermuda, and who would have become a citizen of the UK and colonies by descent if their parents were married. The third group are those who did not acquire British subject status, or citizenship of the UK and colonies, but who would have done if their parents were married. For example, this would affect a person born in the USA to a father born in Montserrat.

Clause 2 also sets out when a person registered under these provisions will acquire BOTC by descent or otherwise than by descent. A person who holds that status by descent will not normally be able to pass it on to a child born outside the territories. Our intention here is to give the person the status they would have received had their parents been married. Home Office officials are working with territories to develop the process for these applications. As was the case with clause 1, we think that registration is the right route, rather than automatic acquisition, to allow people to make a conscious choice about acquiring British nationality.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

If a married couple has a child, the assumption is made that the man is the biological father, even though anyone who has seen “The Jeremy Kyle Show” will know that that is not always the case. If a couple is living together when a child is born, will DNA evidence be required in some or any cases, or will it be assumed that the man is the biological father?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question. I will take it away and write to him on that point.

As I mentioned in relation to clause 1, we will also create a route for people who become BOTCs to additionally become British citizens.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Sections 1 and 2: related British citizenship

[Tom Pursglove]

I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 3, page 8, line 17, leave out “under this section” and insert “on an application under subsection (1)(a)”.

This amendment means that the requirement in s.4K(3), that a person is registered as a BOTC, only applies to applications under subsection (1)(a). It is not needed for applications under subsection (1)(b), which are made by persons who are already BOTCs, and as previously drafted could have prevented registration of persons naturalised as BOTCs rather than registered.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Tom Pursglove]

The amendment remedies a drafting issue. The clause as a whole creates a route to register as a British citizen for people who have registered as a British overseas territories citizen under the new routes introduced by clauses 1 and 2. The British Overseas Territories Act 2002 made BOTCs British citizens as well, so it is right that we allow those who missed out on British overseas territories citizenship to become British citizens as well. However, we also want to cover those who have already taken steps to become a British overseas territories citizen, such as through registration or naturalisation in a territory. The amendment introduces the wording of section 4K(3). As that section is currently worded, it means that only those who have been registered as a BOTC can register as British citizens using this clause. The amendment will mean that people who have naturalised as a BOTC will also qualify.

More broadly, on clause stand part, this is an important change aimed at giving British citizenship to those who become British overseas territories citizens under the provisions introduced by clauses 1 and 2. As we have heard, two groups missed out on becoming BOTCs because of anomalies in British nationality law: people born to BOTC mothers before 1983, and people born to unmarried fathers before 1 July 2006. Clauses 1 and 2 will correct this, giving them the opportunity to acquire the BOTC status that they should have had.

We also recognise, however, that changes to the law in 2002 mean that they should also have become British citizens. Under the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, on 21 May 2002 all British overseas territories citizens who had that citizenship by connection with a “qualifying territory” became British citizens. For children born in a qualifying territory after 21 May 2002, British citizenship is acquired automatically if either parent is a British citizen or settled in that territory. This means that this group have missed out on both BOTC and British citizenship, so we need to create a route for them to acquire both.

We recognise that some people who did not become BOTCs automatically may have already taken steps to acquire that status by applying for registration or naturalisation in a territory. Some may also have applied to become a British citizen under existing provisions, but for those who did not, this clause allows a person who would have become a British citizen, had women and unmarried fathers been able to pass on status at the time of their birth, to register as a British citizen if they are now a BOTC.

Home Office officials are working with territories to develop the process for these applications, including in respect of whether this can be a done as a “one-stop” approach, with a person being able to apply for BOTC and then also opt in to apply to be a British citizen at the same time.

We regularly receive representations on this issue, from individuals and governors, and so understand the strength of feeling. We are aware of families where cousins have different statuses because women and men could not pass on citizenship in the same way, or because a child’s parents did not marry. Those in this position understandably feel that they have been unfairly prevented from holding a status that they should have acquired by birth. It is therefore important that we make this change, and I commend clause 3 to the Committee.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh.

Opposition Members will not oppose amendment 59, and I will speak primarily to clause 3 stand part. The clause refers to the creation of the new statutory entitlement for British overseas territories citizens who have been affected by the injustices that we have heard about this morning in relation to clauses 1 and 2 to become citizens by registration. While all those with BOTC status additionally became British citizens in 2002, by virtue of section 3 of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, we know of the loopholes that have existed due to the fact that women could not pass on citizenship, or because their parents were not married, and as a result many were unable to become British citizens under the 2002 Act. I am pleased that the Government are committing to new routes for adult children of British Overseas Territories Citizen parents to be registered as BOTCs and, in turn, as British citizens.

Clauses 1 to 3 would benefit people born to BOTC mothers and BOTC unmarried fathers who could not pass on citizenship to their child due to nationality laws at the time of the child’s birth, which, as we have heard this morning, is deeply unfair and is rightly being addressed in this legislation. Clause 3 creates a route to becoming a British citizen for people who registered as a BOTC under the new routes introduced by clauses 1 and 2.

However, we must also discuss the implementation of clauses 1 to 3. Accessibility is all-important and while we welcome the changes made to British nationality law outlined earlier today, I have concerns about rights being inaccessible, which we have seen time and again in the UK, with devastating consequences. If we take perhaps the clearest and most heartbreaking example of the Windrush scandal—one of the most shocking and contemptible episodes in the UK Government’s history—I am sure colleagues across the Committee will agree that the Windrush generation were treated shamefully after a lifetime of working hard, paying their taxes, bringing up their families and contributing to our society. They were left facing uncertainty about their legal status in the UK and lost access to their homes, jobs and healthcare, through no fault of their own.

As last year’s “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” highlights, changes made to British nationality law in the 1980s

“progressively impinged on the rights and status of the Windrush generation and their children without many of them realising it.”

Therefore, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, the rights that are to be established for British overseas territories citizenship must be accessible. The Home Office must provide assurances as to when and how these rights will be made public and widely publicised for those affected. I make the point around accessibility now as we discuss clause 3, and I hope we can return to it later on, as I believe it is very important.

Overall, the Opposition none the less support clause 3 as it provides the framework to tidy up inconsistencies in British nationality law and acknowledges those who have suffered under UK law due to loopholes outlined in clauses 1 and 2.

Amendment 59 agreed to.

Amendment proposed: 10, in clause 3, page 8, line 18, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must not charge a fee for the processing of applications under this section.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee for British citizenship applications by certain British overseas territories citizens.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Question negatived.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Period for registration of person born outside the British overseas territories

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Tom Pursglove]

We have been clear that the nationality provisions within the Bill seek to tackle historical unfairness and inequality in British nationality law. As with earlier clauses, this legislation gives us the opportunity to amend provisions for British overseas territories citizens to mirror the comparable requirements already in place for British citizens.

Section 17(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 provides a registration route for a child whose parent is a BOTC by descent where that parent had been in a territory for a continuous period of three years at some point before the child’s birth. At present, an application to register a child under this route must be made within 12 months of the child’s birth. However, the parallel provision for British citizens, section 3(2) of the 1981 Act, was amended in 2010, replacing the requirement for an application to register a child to be made within 12 months of the child’s birth, with a requirement for the application to be made while the child is a minor.

Clause 4 seeks to amend the BOTC registration route in the same way. Rather than requiring applications to be lodged within 12 months of the birth, the clause would allow an application to be made at any time before the child’s 18th birthday. Consequently, the provision for the Secretary of State to exercise discretion to extend the registration period from 12 months to six years in section 17(4) will be removed as it is no longer needed.

Entitlement remains limited to children with a particular parental and residential connection to the relevant territory. In line with the British citizenship route, we do not propose extending the route to adults. Other adults seeking to become BOTCs, such as by naturalisation, must demonstrate a personal connection with the territory and cannot rely merely on the residence of their parents, and we want to ensure that this amendment remains consistent with other existing provisions. The aim is to ensure fairness across British nationality law, not to create further discrepancies. Clause 4 will bring the provisions for BOTCs in line with those already in place for British citizens.

14:15

[Bambos Charalambous]

Clause 4 also refers to an additional aspect necessary to align British citizenship and British overseas territory citizenship. The clause removes a requirement that applications for registering a child as a BOTC must be made within 12 months of birth, amending section 17(2) of the 1981 Act. As the Committee will know, section 17(2) provides a registration route for a child whose parent is a BOTC by descent and had been in a territory for a continuous period of three years at some point before the child’s birth. At present, an application under this route must be made within 12 months of the child’s birth; however, the same provision for British citizens was extended throughout childhood with the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, which replaced the requirement for the application to be made within 12 months of the child’s birth with a requirement for the application to be made while the child is a minor.

Clause 4 amends the BOTC registration route in the same way, so the same extension from within 12 months of the child’s birth to throughout childhood is applied to BOTCs. The Opposition support this clause and would be interested to know how many people will be affected once clauses 1 to 4 have been implemented.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Disapplication of historical registration requirements

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Tom Pursglove]

This clause seeks to amend British nationality law to remove historical registration requirements and to reflect recent case law. As we have already heard, before 1983 women were unable to pass on British citizenship, and before 1 July 2006 unmarried fathers were unable to pass on citizenship. Under the previous legislation, the British Nationality Act 1948, citizenship could normally only be passed on to one generation of children born outside of the UK and colonies.

However, section 5(1)(b) of the 1948 Act permitted transmission through a father to a further generation if the child was born in a foreign country and their birth was registered within a year at a British consulate. The period could be extended at the Secretary of State’s discretion. An example of this might be where the child’s grandfather was born in the UK and their father was born in the United States of America: the child’s birth could be registered at the British consulate in the United States and they would have become a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies as a result. However, a British mother or unmarried British father could not register their child’s birth at a consulate, because they were unable to pass on citizenship at that time.

There are already measures in place for people to register as a British citizen if they would have been able to acquire that status automatically if women and unmarried fathers had been able to pass on citizenship under the 1948 Act. This clause means that a person will not be prevented from registering under those provisions if the only reason they cannot qualify is that their parent was unable to register their birth at a consulate.

[Bambos Charalambous]

As we move through part 1 of the Bill, we turn to British citizenship in clause 5. This clause again seeks to correct historical problems in British nationality law concerning discrimination against women. The current statutory language has caused significant problems in implementation. Under the 1948 Act, citizenship could normally only be passed on for one generation to children born outside the UK and colonies, but section 5(1)(b) of the Act permitted it to be passed on to a further generation if the child was born in a foreign country and the birth was registered within a year at a British consulate. The child of the British mother or unmarried British father could not be registered because they were unable to pass on citizenship at the time.

British women, therefore, although able to inherit their fathers’ nationality when born abroad, have historically been denied the right to pass it on to their own children in the same circumstances. Although when it came into force on 1 January 1983 the British Nationality Act 1981 equalised the rights of men and women as regards the nationality of their children, it did nothing to remedy the discrimination against women that had persisted up to that point. That discrimination was demonstrated in the Supreme Court on 9 February 2018, in the Advocate General for Scotland v. Romein. Ms Romein was born in the USA in 1978 and her father was a US citizen. Her mother was born in South Africa to a Scottish mother and a Welsh father, from whom she inherited her British national status. Despite her family’s connections to the United Kingdom on both sides, as a result of the discrimination inherent in British nationality law—specifically, at that time, section 5 of the British Nationality Act 1948—she was unable to pass her British national status on to her own child, despite wishing to do so.

Clause 5 therefore amends eligibility requirements for registration under section 4C and 4I of the British Nationality Act 1981, to disapply the requirements for a birth to have been registered at a British consulate within 12 months. In effect, it will tidy up the language of British nationality legislation to make clear the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ms Romein’s case, which confirmed the right of British women to pass their nationality on to their children born abroad. The Opposition support the clause, which creates no new rights, but rather makes clear the existing rights in UK law. We welcome that.

Question put and agreed to. 

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 6 

Citizenship where mother married to someone other than natural father  

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Tom Pursglove]

Picking up on the earlier question that the shadow Minister asked, I should say that my understanding when it comes to this amendment is that the clause will affect only a small number of people. But it is an area of law out of touch with modern society, so it is right that we should make this change.

The issue is that in British nationality law the mother’s husband is the child’s father, even if she has been separated from him for years and the child is not biologically related to her husband. That can create difficult cases—for example, when a child’s biological father is a British citizen, but their father for nationality purposes is the mother’s estranged non-British husband. The child misses out on British nationality as a result.

Generally, we think it is right that the mother’s husband should be treated as the child’s father for nationality purposes. The common law presumption is that a child born during a period of marriage is the child of the mother’s husband, unless shown otherwise. For nationality purposes, however, there should be certainty about a child’s status, which should not be subject to change at a later date if paternity is disputed. But we need a solution for the child whose father is not the mother’s husband, so that they do not miss out on becoming British through their natural father.

Until now, we have been registering such children as British citizens using the discretion that the Home Secretary has to register any child under the age of 18 under section 3(1) of the 1981 Act. We recognise that those children would have been British automatically were it not for their mother being married to someone else, so we made that a fee-free route last year.

However, the inconsistency has been highlighted by the courts. In the case of K, the court ruled that, although it was a correct interpretation of the legislation for the child not to be a British citizen automatically, the fact that the only remedy was through discretionary legislation was incompatible with the European convention on human rights.

We must take this opportunity to create a specific route for children in this position to be able to acquire British nationality. That is achievable by removing from existing registration provisions the requirement for children of unmarried fathers to have been born before 1 July 2006. People in this position may not see any practical difference, as they can currently make a fee-free application under section 3(1), but the important point is that the provision gives this group a legal entitlement to registration, rather than their having to rely on the exercise of discretion.

We are also using the clause to allow a child of a non-British member of the British armed forces to make an application to register as a British citizen, despite their mother being married to someone other than their biological father at the time of their birth. That will bring them in line with other children whose parents were serving overseas at the time of the birth.

[Bambos Charalambous]

It is deeply regrettable that British statutory law has long discriminated against children born out of wedlock, preventing British nationality from being derived from a British father if he was not married to the child’s mother. The British Nationality Act 1981, when first passed, did not correct that discrimination relating to British citizenship, but since then there have been various attempts to remove it. Those amendments have created rights to be registered as a British citizen for some of the people affected by that discrimination. However, no corresponding right has been introduced for people who would have become British overseas territory citizens. As we have seen, clause 2 is intended to correct this omission, and the Opposition support it.

However, clause 2 is not sufficient in itself to correct the discrimination relating to British citizenship; indeed, the relevant legislation has led to an anomaly. That anomaly, which is to be corrected by clause 6, which we also support, is that people who would have been born a British citizen but for their father not being married to their mother now have the right to be registered as a British citizen if they were born before 1 July 2006. That applies whether or not the mother was married to someone else at the time of the person’s birth.

However, people born on or after that date, who would similarly have been born a British citizen but were not because their father was not married to their mother, do not have a corresponding right. The courts have declared that discrimination to be incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. Clause 6 is intended to correct that injustice, and we therefore support it. It does so only for British citizenship. That is because the correction for British overseas territories citizenship is built into clause 2.

As has been said, our primary concern with clauses 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 is not with the text or with the fundamental intentions behind them but with the fact that, when commenced, the rights that are to be established must be accessible. There are too many examples of British nationality rights being inaccessible. The Windrush scandal is but one especially painful relevant example.

The following matters are therefore crucial. We would like the Minister to give assurances as to how these rights will be made public and will be sufficiently widely publicised, not least because many of the beneficiaries will be in other territories or countries.

Ministers must equally give assurances that evidential and procedural obstacles will, to the fullest extent practical, be removed or reduced. Biometric registration and overseas and mandatory citizenship ceremonies, for example, must not be prohibitive to the exercise of these rights, as they have been in the past. Biometric registration must not be prohibitively expensive or inaccessible. Ceremonies can be waived, and that should be done where a person wishes to do that, or where a ceremony cannot be offered without undue cost or delay to the person being registered.

Where relevant information is available and can be confirmed by the Home Office or the Passport Office, that should be done. People must not be obstructed by unreasonable demands for evidence. It must be understood that, for some people, there may be considerable obstacles to securing evidence of their rights so many years after the original injustice—for example, due to age, somebody passing away, or separation, including by reason of abuse or violence. The Home Office or Passport Office must be as helpful as possible to facilitate the exercise of these rights.

In conclusion, we support the clause and the intention behind it, but it is of great importance that the Minister also ensures that these rights are fully accessible.

[Tom Pursglove]

Let me respond briefly to the point that has understandably and rightly been made. As I said in response to earlier clauses, there is a very constructive working relationship between the Home Office and the various overseas territories for which these provisions are relevant, as well as with the various governors. There is good engagement, and we are keen to see this information cascaded.

The point I would strongly make is that we are seeking through the provisions in the Bill to put right past injustices, and we would want this information to be as readily available as possible to people who may find themselves affected. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate has my undertaking that I will take that point away and monitor it very closely to ensure that that happens.

In the discussion on an earlier clause, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby showed an interest in relation to proof of paternity. In relation to this clause, regulations will set out what can be accepted as proof of paternity—first, being named before 10 September 2015 as the child’s father on the birth certificate issued within 12 months of the birth and, in all other cases, any evidence such as DNA test reports, court orders or birth certificates considered by the Secretary of State to establish paternity. I know that my right hon. Friend had an interest in that issue in relation to the earlier clause, but I thought that it would be useful to say something about it here as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Citizenship: registration in special cases

14:30

[Bambos Charalambous]

I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 7, page 9, line 36, at end insert—

‘(1A) In section 1 (acquisition by birth or adoption) subsection (5)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for “minor” substitute “person”; and

(b) after paragraph (b), for “that minor shall” substitute “that person or minor (as the case may be) shall”.’

This amendment seeks to bring British nationality law in line with adoption law in England and Wales. In those nations, an adoption order made by a court may be made where a child has reached the age of 18 but is not yet 19. Yet such an adoption order currently only confers British citizenship automatically where the person adopted is under 18 on the day the order is made.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 9, line 40, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to approve applications for British citizenship by people who have previously been denied the opportunity to acquire it on account of historical legislative unfairness, an act or omission of a public authority, or exceptional circumstances.

Amendment 30, in clause 7, page 10, line 25, at end insert—

‘4M Acquisition by registration: equal treatment

(1) Where a person (P) is registered as a British citizen under subsection 4L(1), the Secretary of State must—

(a) ensure that other persons applying to be registered are so registered where the same unfairness, act or omission or circumstances apply unless there are material factors relevant to their applications that were not relevant to P’s application;

(b) amend or make policy or guidance in line with the registration of P;

(c) make that new or amended policy or guidance publicly available; and

(d) take such other steps as may be reasonably necessary to draw attention to that new or amended policy or guidance among other people affected by that same unfairness, act or omission or circumstances.

(2) In each Parliamentary session, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of any historical legislative unfairness on the basis of which any person has been registered under subsection 4L(1) and which remains to be corrected by amendment to the British Nationality Act 1981 or such other legislation as may be required.

(3) The report required by subsection (2) must both explain each case of historical legislative unfairness to which it relates and set out the period within which the Secretary of State intends to make the necessary correction to the British Nationality Act 1981 or other legislation.’

This amendment requires that the Government publicise any change in policy or guidance in order to ensure that there is no unfairness in treatment of British citizens or those who are applying to be registered as British citizens. It also requires the Secretary of State to report and explain any historical legislative unfairness.

Amendment 14, in clause 7, page 10, line 30, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to approve applications for British citizenship by people who have previously been denied the opportunity to acquire it on account of historical legislative unfairness, an act or omission of a public authority, or exceptional circumstances.

Amendment 31, in clause 7, page 11, line 8, at end insert—

‘17I Acquisition by registration: equal treatment

(1) Where a person (P) is registered as a British Overseas Territories citizen under subsection 17H(1), the Secretary of State must—

(a) ensure that other persons applying to be registered are so registered where the same unfairness, act or omission or circumstances apply unless there are material factors relevant to their applications that were not relevant to P’s application;

(b) amend or make policy or guidance in line with the registration of P;

(c) make that new or amended policy or guidance publicly available; and

(d) take such other steps as may be reasonably necessary to draw attention to that new or amended policy or guidance among other people affected by that same unfairness, act or omission or circumstances.

(2) In each Parliamentary session, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of any historical legislative unfairness on the basis of which any person has been registered and which remains to be corrected by amendment to the British Nationality Act 1981 or such other legislation as may be required.

(3) The report required by subsection (2) must both explain each case of historical legislative unfairness to which it relates and set out the period within which the Secretary of State intends to make the necessary correction to the British Nationality Act 1981 or other legislation.’

This amendment requires that the Government publicise any change in policy or guidance in order to ensure that there is no unfairness in treatment of British Overseas Territories citizens or those who are applying to be registered as British citizens. It also requires the Secretary of State to report and explain any historical legislative unfairness.

Amendment 34, in clause 7, page 11, line 8, at end insert—

‘(4) After section 23 (Citizens of UK and Colonies who are to become British overseas territories citizens at commencement), insert—

“23A Acquisition by registration: special circumstances

(1) If an application is made for a person of full age and capacity (“P”) to be registered as a British Overseas citizen, the Secretary of State may cause P to be registered as such a citizen if, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, P would have been, or would have been able to become, a British Overseas citizen but for—

(a) historical legislative unfairness,

(b) an act or omission of a public authority, or

(c) exceptional circumstances relating to P.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), “historical legislative unfairness” includes circumstances where P would have become, or would not have ceased to be, a British subject, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or a British Overseas citizen, if an Act of Parliament or subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978) had, for the purposes of determining a person’s nationality status—

(a) treated males and females equally,

(b) treated children of unmarried couples in the same way as children of married couples, or

(c) treated children of couples where the mother was married to someone other than the natural father in the same way as children of couples where the mother was married to the natural father.

(3) In subsection (1)(b), “public authority” means any public authority within the meaning of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, other than a court or tribunal.

(4) In considering whether to grant an application under this section, the Secretary of State may take into account whether the applicant is of good character.”’

This amendment seeks to extend the remedy in Clause 7 to those who would have been British Overseas Citizens but for historical unfairness.

Clause stand part.

[Bambos Charalambous]

It is the view of the Opposition that British nationality law is out of kilter with adoption law in England and Wales and needs to be rectified. In those countries where an adoption order has been made by a court, it may be made where a child has reached the age of 18 but has not yet reached the age of 19; yet such an adoption order confers British citizenship automatically only where the person adopted is under 18 on the day the order is made. It seems evident to the Opposition that that is a slip that results in unnecessary unfairness.

The adoption law as it stands was enacted some 20 years after the relevant nationality law, and apparently the inconsistency that it created was overlooked. It has never been suggested that the adoption law and British nationality law should be out of step where a court in England and Wales authorises a person to be adopted by a British citizen parent. It is important for every member of the Committee to know that the stated problem is not merely a theoretical one; it generates victims in real life, including a university graduate who was 18 but not yet 19 when she was adopted by her aunt after her mother died of cancer, and who will have no basis on which to enjoy family life in the UK with her new adopted mother once her student status has ended.

We therefore believe that the position needs correcting. The Bill is the right vehicle to make that correction, which is not controversial and which we do not believe should divide Committee members on party lines. The amendment, which should command cross-party support, would bring British nationality law in line with adoption law, so that where our courts make an adoption order in respect of a person who is 18 but not yet 19, and the adoptive parent was a British citizen, British citizenship is conferred automatically on the person adopted. No adoption order may be made in respect of a person who has reached the age of 19, so the proposed amendment affects only those who are 18 but not yet 19 when the adoption order is made.

It is also important to point out that it is no answer to the problem to say that an 18-year-old adopted by a British citizen will be able to apply for registration by an adult as a British citizen at the Secretary of State’s discretion under proposed new section 4L of the British Nationality Act 1981, provided for in clause 7. The problem relates to those persons who should be treated as British citizens automatically from the date of their adoption by a British citizen. Where the only solution is a subsequent application for British citizenship at the Secretary of State’s discretion, there is the risk that such an application may be overlooked, or refused on another basis, such that the intention of Parliament to confer British citizenship on a person adopted by a British citizen will be frustrated. We therefore believe that the sole solution is to make this simple amendment to align British nationality law with adoption law.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McDonagh. I will speak in support of amendments 13, 14, 30 and 31. I also support amendments 34 and 35. Amendment 35 in particular seems to make perfect sense—although it relates exclusively to England and Wales. I confess that I have not managed to ascertain whether a similar issue arises in relation to either Northern Ireland or Scotland and, depending on what the Minister says in response, that is perhaps something we can all do our homework on before Report stage.

On the other amendments, this brings us back to the point I made when making the case for no fees for introducing applications, or at least restricted fees. These fees put people off from accessing their rights, especially when there is discretion or subjective criteria are used that mean people can have only a limited idea about whether paying a fee and making an application will result in anything positive happening. If they can afford it and if they know that they meet the criteria, people will pay a fee, but this would not necessarily make it easier to see in advance whether they would be able to show historical injustice or exceptional circumstances, or that the fault lay with the public authority.

We have already debated the fee aspect and made the case for lower fees to ensure that people are not put off from seeking to fix injustices that they have suffered. These amendments taken together address the other side of the coin: what can be done to make the criteria more transparent so that people can feel confident with their applications?

Amendments 30 and 31 seek to ensure that both officials and the victims of injustice are aware of how the provisions brought about by clause 7 are being implemented. If a new type of injustice in UK nationality law is discovered, or circumstances are deemed so exceptional that the Secretary of State decides that registration is merited and she grants such an application, she will first need to ensure that policy and guidance are updated so that those processing other similar applications are aware of that fact and people applying in the same circumstances are successful. More than that, she will also be required to take steps to try and ensure that people who might be entitled to register in the same circumstances know that they can do so.

Again, as I said earlier, we know from Windrush how important taking such action to make people aware of their rights can be. In short, people will have a greater understanding of whether their application will be successful and those who meet the criteria set out in policy will apply. Those who are making decisions will be aware that in previous cases similar applications have been granted and those applications will therefore be successful.

Amendments 13 and 14 challenge a Minister to explain why the provisions introduced by clause 7 are expressed entirely as “may” rather than “must”. If a person proves they are a victim of an injustice, which is carefully defined in the clause, then why should the Home Secretary still have a totally unlimited power to refuse registration in any event? Similarly, if a person shows they were denied citizenship because of an act of omission by a public authority or by exceptional circumstances, why should the Home Secretary have a totally unfettered power to say no?

The big fear is that the Secretary of State has the broadest discretion possible regardless of whether a person meets other criteria. Who will make an application, particularly if there is a fee involved? I can see possible flaws in going completely the other way to a situation where it is a requirement and a must, but that would be better than the totally unlimited discretion that is in the Bill right now. I simply challenge a Minister to come up with a better form of this.

[Bambos Charalambous]

On amendment 30, we want to make sure that the Secretary of State is required to take all reasonable and necessary steps to ensure that the right to registration under clause 7 is made accessible to all its intended beneficiaries. We also want to ensure that historical legislative unfairness is corrected. We do not believe that it is sufficient to rely on that being done ad hoc, subject to the discretion of any particular Secretary of State.

As has been obvious from discussions on previous clauses, several injustices have been identified in British nationality law in our policy and practice over the years. Important provisions in the Bill are necessary to correct some of that, including changes to previous amendments to the British Nationality Act 1981, which only partially corrected a particular injustice.

The Opposition understand and accept that the broad purpose of clause 7 is to provide the means to correct further injustices, and we broadly support its aims. We are concerned, however, about the implementation of the clause, and the amendment serves to address that.

Hon. Members will be aware that clause 7 introduces a new discretion to register adults as British citizens or British overseas territories citizens where that is immediately necessary or appropriate in view of some historical injustice, an act or omission by a public authority, or other exceptional circumstances. As it stands, that provision is welcome and reflects the underlying purpose of all rights of registration under the British Nationality Act 1981 to ensure that citizenship is the right of all persons connected to the UK or the British overseas territories.

However, given that clause 7 relates to historical legislative unfairness, it raises a concern that it may be relied on by Ministers to avoid making necessary future amendments to the 1981 Act, required specifically to correct such injustice. We are deeply concerned, because when such an injustice is identified, Ministers must take the appropriate action to correct it in the Act. It is not enough to rely on the opinion of any particular Minister or group of Ministers. For that reason, we want to insert the following in clause 7:

“Where a person (P) is registered as a British citizen under subsection 4L(1), the Secretary of State must—

(a) ensure that other persons applying to be registered are so registered where the same unfairness, act or omission or circumstances apply unless there are material factors relevant to their applications that were not relevant to P’s application;

(b) amend or make policy or guidance in line with the registration of P;

(c) make that new or amended policy or guidance publicly available; and

(d) take such other steps as may be reasonably necessary to draw attention to that new or amended policy or guidance among other people affected by that same unfairness, act or omission or circumstances.”

Clause 7 must genuinely be given real practical effect—it must not become a mere token statutory provision. Registration requires someone to make a formal application, so the clause will be ineffective if uncertainty over the result of an application, coupled with any cost or other impediment to do so, deters people from making applications. In such circumstances, clause 7 could stand redundant on the statute book because no one to whom it ought to apply knows about it or is sufficiently encouraged or enabled to apply for the discretion to be exercised.

For those reasons, the following matters must, at a minimum, be addressed. It is generally inappropriate, as with registration more generally, for the Secretary of State to charge prohibitive and above-cost fees to prevent people from exercising their rights to British citizenship. The fees are made even more prohibitive if it is not possible to assess in advance that an application will be successful because there are no fixed criteria by which the right to be registered will be assessed.

Ministers should also be pressed to give an assurance that when an individual application is successful, there will be positive action to ensure that other potential applicants are made aware of their equal or similar right to register at their discretion. Under amendment 30, if an unfairness, act or omission by a public authority or exceptional circumstances are identified that make it necessary to exercise discretion, appropriate publicity must be given to it, and there should be a formal updating of public-facing policy. It must be made clear that others in the same circumstances will succeed with their applications to register, if they make them; otherwise, people will continue to be excluded from citizenship in circumstances where it is clearly intended that they should not be.

14:45

Moreover, this must apply equally to British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship, when any specific type of injustice or exceptional circumstance is identified in an application. With regard to both those British nationalities, there must be publicity, and policy change must be made clear.

Amendment 30 clarifies how the intention behind clause 7 can be met. It would take away the possibility of inconsistency, which is inherent in our relying on the opinion of individual Ministers, and it would bring about certain practical steps that would make the law easier to enact.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I will speak in support of the amendment in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. We also broadly support the Official Opposition’s amendments. I wanted to raise the evidence that the Committee heard from Free Movement and Amnesty International.

[The Chair]

I am sorry to interrupt, but there is a Division in the Chamber.

14:47

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:01

On resuming—

[Anne McLaughlin]

I was speaking in support of all the amendments in the group and will use evidence given to the Committee by Amnesty International and Free Movement before adding a couple of points. The clause introduces the discretionary route for registration as an adult. Discretion can be exercised where, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, that person would have been able to become a British citizen if it were not for a number of things. I want to look first at the exceptional circumstances.

Free Movement’s concern, shared by a number of people, including me, is about the reference to the Secretary of State’s opinion. A future Secretary of State—let us not say the current Secretary of State, because we would not want to personalise this—may hold an opinion generally considered to be disproportionate, unreasonable or ridiculous. They may not be from the current party in government—I am not saying that it is more likely to happen under one particular party—but where does it end? There is nothing to say that their opinion can be curbed. I am wondering what is meant by that reference. How could a legal challenge be mounted against a decision that the Secretary of State is allowed to make based on their opinion? I would like something from the Minister on that.

I turn to historical legislative unfairness, which we have talked about a lot today. It has been defined with specifics. We have talked about the unequal treatment of mothers, children of unmarried couples, and children of mothers married to someone other than their natural father, but the list does not include discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and race. The list is not definitive. Is there scope to consider the role played by such discrimination in terms of historical unfairness? I would like the Minister’s thoughts on that.

On the act or omission by a public authority, it is always useful to say when we think somebody has got it right—and we have said that a number of times today. I want to reiterate that, as Free Movement has said, there have been a number of concerns that local authorities responsible for children who become entitled to British citizenship under their care do not always get the applications made on those children’s behalf. Sometimes that is because there has been a misunderstanding, and at other times it is deemed to be not in the child’s interest at that time and it is not always included in their care plan. By the time they are an adult, it is too late for them to make that decision themselves, so I am quite supportive of measures to deal with that.

I want to talk about a concern that Amnesty has expressed—I am sure the Minister has seen this—which is that clause 7 has to be given real, practical effect, and that the measure will be ineffective if uncertainty over the result of an application, along with the excessive fees that we have talked about, deters people from making applications in the first place. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has made those points.

Amnesty has asked for the following matters to be addressed. First, we have talked about fees at length, but I reiterate that several organisations are very concerned about the fees. Secondly, Amnesty has asked for assurances that where an individual application is successful, the Government will take positive action to ensure that other potential applicants are made aware of their equal or similar right to register at discretion. This means that where an example is identified of, as the Bill says, unfairness, an act or omission by a public authority or exceptional circumstances on which it is right or necessary to exercise the discretion, there should be publicity and awareness raising. We have talked a lot about that, but Amnesty wants to know that that will happen, and that members of the public who could use the legislation to the same positive effect will have that information. Lastly, Amnesty has asked for an assurance that awareness raising will apply equally to British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship.

[Bambos Charalambous]

I want to speak to amendment 34, which deals with people who would be British overseas citizens today but for historical unfairness in the law, an act or omission of a public authority or other exceptional circumstances. The Opposition welcome the fact that clause 7 attempts to rectify the position for those who would be British citizens or British overseas territories citizens today but for such an error. However, the clause does nothing for people who would be British overseas citizens today, and that is wrong.

Those who would be BOCs but for such an error should not be excluded from the proposed remedy. They have suffered from historical unfairness, just as those who would be British citizens or BOTCs today have done. Prior to 1983, there was one substantive class of British nationals, citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. When the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force on 1 January 1983, CUKCs were divided and reclassified into three categories: British citizens, connected to the UK; British dependent territories citizens—now BOTCs—connected to the remaining British overseas territories, such as the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar; and BOCs, connected to the former British colonies.

The Home Office acknowledges that past unfairness in British nationality law includes where men and women were unable to pass on citizenship equally, and where unmarried fathers could not pass on citizenship. The Home Office acknowledges that in the case of people who could be British citizens or BOTCs, but many persons who would be overseas citizens today also suffer from such prejudice. As a result of the British overseas expansion and later decolonisation, there are pockets of BOCs around the world—for example, in Kenya, Malaysia, South Africa and anglophone west Africa, including places such as Sierra Leone. The category of BOC was created under the British Nationality Act, and it gave effect to the fact that BOCs were British nationals and should remain so. The newly created status gave no home or right of abode in the UK or any other remaining British territory.

Although BOCs have no right to come to the UK or a remaining British overseas territory, the status still has real value. It enables a person to seek to use the UK BOC passport, and possession of such a passport enables BOCs to seek UK consular assistance in a third country and to seek residence and permission to work in third countries under local laws. It may be useful where the passport of another nationality that those people hold is considered unreliable, and where their children are born stateless, to benefit from UK laws that reduce statelessness.

BOCs around the world make active use of that status. For example, many persons of Somali heritage born in Aden in Yemen when it was a British colony are reliant on BOC status, as they were, and are, shut out from the Yemeni nationality. Their BOC passports enable them to obtain lawful residence and permission to work in Gulf states, and to secure a visa to study in other countries. The Home Office proposal in clause 7 helps those affected by historical unfairness in British nationality law, an act or omission of a public authority, or exceptional circumstances to become British citizens or BOTCs. However, potential BOCs would also have suffered from such historical unfairness in British nationality law, acts or omissions of public authorities, or other exceptional circumstances. All those classes of British nationals were CUKCs prior to the British Nationality Act 1981, and all suffered from these problems. Clause 7 should therefore be supplemented to provide for registration as a BOC on the same basis as it enables registration as a British citizen or BOTC.

[Tom Pursglove]

I will deal with each of the amendments proposed, and then I will of course pick up on a number of the points, questions and challenges that have been raised throughout the course of this debate.

I thank the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Halifax for having tabled amendment 35, which would allow a person to become a British citizen automatically following their adoption in the UK if the order was made after the age of 18 but before the age of 19, but the adoption proceedings started before their 18th birthday. I have noted the unusual situation, highlighted by hon. Members, in which newly adopted young people can find themselves as a result of differences between the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the British Nationality Act 1981. An adopted person can automatically acquire British citizenship, provided they are under 18 on the date the adoption order is made. However, under the 2002 Act, it is possible for an adoption order to be made where someone is already 18 years old but has not yet turned 19.

I am aware of cases in which individuals are affected by those nationality provisions, and I have some sympathy for them. However, I am also conscious that a person aged 18 will normally be capable of making their own life choices. At 18, someone can purchase alcohol, accrue debt, join the Army, or vote in an election. From a legal standpoint, at 18, an individual is fully fledged and can theoretically live independently of other family members. It is therefore consistent that a person aged 18 or over who is seeking to acquire British citizenship should normally do so only on the basis of their personal connections with this country, not those of their new family.

I must consider the wider position of adopted children, and I am satisfied that to extend the nationality rules to cover persons who have attained the majority would move nationality out of step with immigration routes. For example, young people over the age of 18 must meet the requirements of the immigration category they are applying in, and are unable to rely on other family members for a claim to residence. I have sympathy for those young adults who feel that they have lost out, but other routes are available that would allow them to choose whether they wish to naturalise or register as British citizens.

Turning to amendment 13, again I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendment and for drawing attention to clause 7, which we believe is a positive move that will allow the Home Secretary to grant British citizenship to those who have missed out on acquiring it, potentially due to reasons beyond their control. Clause 7 will apply to anyone who

“would have been, or would have been able to become, a British citizen but for—

(a) historical legislative unfairness,

(b) an act or omission of a public authority,”

or their exceptional circumstances. This means that the clause covers not just those who would have become citizens automatically, but those who might have had an entitlement to registration or could have registered or naturalised at the Home Secretary’s discretion. As such, we think it right that the provision remains discretionary, to allow the Home Secretary to take into account the criteria that she might have taken into account at the time.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I will have to give some further thought to what the Minister has just said. I take the point about people who would have had to register—therefore, there is still an element of discretion. However, will he look again at the case of those who would have automatically had that citizenship and whether there really should be such broad discretion in cases where people have missed out on citizenship because of historical injustice or exceptional circumstances?

15:14

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point that he raises. Broadly speaking, there is a view that the discretionary approach to cases is helpful in ensuring that we can reach the right decision in individual cases and that we are able to take into full account, in general terms, all the relevant factors.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Is it the Minister’s intention that the Government will publish the grounds on which decisions are made with discretionary purposes for each decision, regardless of whether they are successful or not?

[Tom Pursglove]

I will come back to the point that the hon. Gentleman raises but, as I say, there is a view that taking a discretionary approach to cases is helpful in reaching the correct decisions, and that the circumstances of individual cases are properly taken into account. There is precedent in the British Nationality Act 1981 for applications to be considered on a discretionary basis—for example, naturalisation is a discretionary provision. The law states that the Home Secretary may naturalise a person if she thinks fit and that person meets the statutory requirements. Members will be aware that the Home Office publishes caseworker guidance, which sets out the sorts of circumstances where discretion would normally be exercised, and that is relevant to the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.

[Neil Coyle]

It is in part, but publishing the full grounds will help to determine whether people seek to take a case or not.

My further question is about the equality impact assessment. As I touched on this morning, the Government are suggesting that they will extend access to legal aid through the Bill. Is the Government’s intention that legal aid will be extended for this specific purpose, regardless of whether people can make a successful claim or not?

[Tom Pursglove]

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The key point is that through the Bill, we are improving access to justice. Clearly, the improved access to justice offer is very relevant to the one-stop shop proposals that we are taking forward in the Bill and which we will no doubt debate in greater detail when we reach later clauses.

[Neil Coyle]

Is that a yes or no?

[Tom Pursglove]

We will no doubt debate this in great detail in due course. As I say, we are putting in place an improved access to justice offer more generally through the Bill.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

There is an absolutely fundamental distinction between naturalisation and registration. We are talking about people who would have had an automatic right to citizenship, which is completely different from naturalisation altogether. Again, I am still struggling to understand why there has to be such broad discretion. People have lost their automatic right because of historical injustice, and the danger that has been highlighted by Members is that that will put folk off applying. Will the Minister not even think about some restrictions on the degree of discretion that the Home Secretary has, or at least provide detailed guidance on when she will exercise that in people’s favour?

[Tom Pursglove]

I want to pick up the points that have been raised by the hon. Members for Bermondsey and for Old Southwark and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. Clearly, the guidance is a very important element of the immigration system, so that people can understand very clearly what is required and precisely how cases will be handled. I am always in favour of trying to make such matters more transparent and to improve guidance wherever we can, and that is always ongoing work. I take on board the point that has been raised, and I will certainly reflect on it.

As I say, Members will be aware that the Home Office publishes caseworker guidance, which sets out the sorts of circumstances where discretion would normally be exercised. This works, and we intend that published guidance will also be available for the new adult registration route. The fact that the Home Secretary is not obliged to naturalise a person does not therefore impact practically on most applicants. However, we want to maintain the ability to refuse applications from people who might meet the requirements, but are nevertheless unsuitable to become British citizens.

Where registration is set out in legislation as an entitlement, it needs to be more tightly set out so that there is no doubt as to who does and does not benefit. Because of the historical nature of citizenship and the fact that issues can crop up that we might not have been aware of, we need the flexibility to be able to consider someone’s circumstances without being overly prescriptive. Equally, we recognise that people can be affected by a number of circumstances, which may be difficult to set out in detail. We are not making this a discretionary provision in order to refuse deserving people, but to allow us to respond to situations that cannot reasonably be foreseen.

I understand that hon. Members may wish to seek assurance that people who have missed out in the past will be granted citizenship, but we think that this can be achieved through a discretionary route, which will allow us to take into account all the circumstances of a case. That is why we are introducing the various provisions in the Bill in the first place: to right those historical wrongs. We want this to work.

On amendment 30, again, I thank the hon. Members for tabling the amendment. The new adult discretionary registration provision will allow the Home Secretary to grant British citizenship to anyone who would have been, or would have been able to become, a British citizen, but for historical legislative unfairness, an act or omission of a public authority, or the exceptional circumstances in play. I understand hon. Members’ concerns that that power should be used fairly and consistently, which is right.

Each case will be considered on its own merits, taking into account the particular circumstances of that person, including the reasons they were unable to become a British citizen automatically, through registration or through naturalisation. On that basis it would be unnecessary to have a legislative clause that effectively causes us to treat like cases in a similar way, because applications will be decided in line with the legislation and guidance.

I have already mentioned that we intend to publish caseworker guidance setting out when we expect that this power might be used and the sort of circumstances we will take into account. Of course, that is done very transparently and can be seen by hon. Members and by people out there seeking access to those routes. As I think is my colleagues’ intended purpose in proposing the amendment, that will help to maintain consistency in decision making.

However, I am not convinced that that would be helped by a statutory requirement to produce or amend guidance every time a person with different circumstances is registered. There may be concerns about reflecting an individual’s circumstances in published guidance, even if anonymised. We will reflect the overarching principles in guidance and amend as appropriate. Guidance will continue to be published on the gov.UK website. I can also assure hon. Members that work is done within UK Visas and Immigration to ensure consistency of decision making, particularly when a new route is introduced, and I think that that is right and proper.

I do not think we can commit in statute to publicise any grants of citizenship to people in a similar position. As I have said, we will publish guidance setting out the approach we will take and make it available to potential applicants, but it would not be right to impose a statutory requirement to do so. Indeed, some of those registered will be in unique positions and it would not be possible to identify others who might qualify on the same basis.

The reporting obligation set out in the amendment would require the Home Secretary each year to report any historical legislative unfairness that had been identified in registering a person under clause 7 and say how she intends to correct it. Perhaps it would help to clarify that the thinking behind clause 7 is that it can be used to rectify individual situations that may have been created by historical unfairness, rather than having to create specific provisions to cover each scenario.

[Neil Coyle]

I thought the Minister was one of those who believed in Parliament taking back control, not the Executive having more control, but let me have one more attempt at the legal aid question. This is not just about the circumstances of the individuals involved—we have heard some distressing cases today—but about the costs imposed in particular on councils, which are using emergency services to support people who might otherwise qualify for support. If legal aid were immediately available for everyone affected, those cases could be resolved much more quickly. Given the complexity the Bill is imposing, it seems as if it should be an actual requirement that that support be available. Let me try again: will legal aid be extended to everyone facing these circumstances as a result of this legislation?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and I will visit that in my later remarks, if I may. He is right to say that I think it is right that Parliament took back control. That is a debate we have had on many occasions and no doubt will continue to have in the years ahead. I am a member of the Government, but I still believe very strongly in parliamentary sovereignty and the role of Parliament in decision making.

To clarify, the thinking behind clause 7 is that it can be used to rectify individual situations that may have been created by historical unfairness, rather than having to create specific provisions to cover each scenario, some of which may affect only a very small number of individuals. This is in fact the way we intend to address those situations, and it may not necessarily be appropriate to introduce additional measures to do so. As such, I do not see that specifying such a report in legislation would be helpful. In terms of addressing unfairness, this provision does not give a far-reaching power—it is much narrower than the discretion the Home Secretary has to register a child under section 3(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981. It does, however, reflect our desire to address historical injustices, as is reflected in all of the first eight clauses. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press amendment 30.

I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling amendment 14, which replicates amendment 13 for British overseas territories citizenship. I set out in response to the earlier amendment why we wanted this to be a discretionary provision, rather than creating an obligation to register. The same arguments apply here. Turning to amendment 31, I have set out why we could not accept an earlier amendment, and the same arguments apply here. I hope that hon. Members will not press amendment 31 either. On amendment 34, new clause 12 seeks to create a discretionary adult registration route for a person to become a British overseas citizen.

[The Chair]

I am sorry for interrupting, but I am not sure that we are actually debating new clause 12 at the moment. As far as I understand it, we are debating amendment 35 to clause 7 and amendments 13, 30, 14, 31 and 34 and clause 7 stand part.

[Tom Pursglove]

I was referring in passing to new clause 12, Ms McDonagh. British overseas citizenship, or BOC, was created by the 1981 Act. It was created for people connected with former British territories who did not have a close connection with the UK or one of the remaining British overseas territories. This was usually where they were from or connected to—a country that had become independent, but they did not acquire the citizenship of that country. The intention was to avoid making people stateless due to complex histories of independence or countries ceasing to be British protected territories. The intention of the 1981 Act was that everyone who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies immediately before 1 January 1983 would continue to hold some form of British nationality. The then Government anticipated that many who became BOCs would have an additional citizenship or nationality.

British overseas citizenship was intended to be a transitional status, and it was expected that many who held that status would have acquired the nationality of the place where they were born or were living in the 38 years since that legislation was passed. They are able to hold a BOC passport and rely on consular assistance when outside the country of any other nationality that they hold, but are likely to rely on their other citizenship for rights of residence and local travel. Given the 38 years that have passed, we do not anticipate that there can be many people who have missed out on becoming a BOC and have no other citizenship or nationality.

There were provisions for children of CUKC mothers to register under the British Nationality Act 1964 where they would otherwise have been stateless. Since 1983, there have been measures in place to acquire BOC through discretionary registration as a child or for certain people who are stateless. However, it was not the general intention that further people would acquire British overseas citizenship under the 1981 Act other than in those specific circumstances. People who hold only BOC and do not have, and have not voluntarily lost, another citizenship or nationality are able to apply for British citizenship under existing legislation. If a person believes that they missed out on becoming a BOC because of historical unfairness, and that, as a result, they also missed out on being able to become a British citizen, as they have no other nationality and have not done anything that meant that they lost a nationality, there is nothing to stop them applying for that status under the clause. BOC status was introduced to avoid statelessness due to complex histories of independence or countries ceasing to be British protected territories. We do not intend to create a new route to British overseas citizenship.

15:29

The Committee has understandably raised a number of questions during debate on the amendments, and I will deal with some of them in turn. On extending the clause to include British overseas citizens, it was not the general intention that further people would acquire British overseas citizenship under the 1981 Act. The only ways to do so are through discretionary registration of a child in exceptional circumstances or of certain people who are stateless. We do not intend to create a new route to BOC status.

The shadow Minister asked how the clause is seen in practical terms. In the light of the historical nature of citizenship, issues of which we are not yet aware may arise. The discretionary nature of the clause allows us flexibility to address future concerns and issues that may arise. We have made changes to address specific anomalies that we were aware of previously, and we think it important to have the flexibility to be able to do that in future as circumstances dictate.

I was asked whether there is scope for dealing with historical unfairness. There are already specific remedies in the Equality Act 2010 and in the ECHR for discrimination. I would be happy to consider specific examples in detail, and quite rightly so. I was also asked how the law could be challenged if it is discretionary in nature. Clearly, decision makers will make decisions by taking account of public law principles and of all relevant considerations in an individual case, and by acting reasonably, as we would quite rightly expect.

Points were made about raising awareness and transparency under the clause. We agree that we need to be clear about how discretion is used in individual cases. The intention is to clarify that in the guidance. We will also consider how we can raise awareness on an ongoing basis, which is a point that we have touched on previously but which bears repeating. Clearly, the whole purpose of making the changes through the legislation is to get on and deliver on them, ensuring that people are able to access them readily and that historical wrongs are righted.

[Neil Coyle]

If I heard the Minister correctly, he is suggesting that someone should pursue their rights through the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but that process would take years and could cost millions if the Government were opposing what that individual was seeking. Is it not incumbent on the Government, under the Equality Act 2010, to get things right up front? Would that not save a lot of time and money, and prevent a lot of desperate situations from emerging?

[Tom Pursglove]

The point that I would make is that we keep evolving circumstances and individual cases under review. It is right that we consider cases individually and properly take account of their individual circumstances. That is why we are arguing strongly that the discretionary means of tackling this is the correct way to do so. I am confident that through the provisions, we will right many historical injustices and wrongs, and that is something we should all welcome.

In the light of the debate that we had about fees, whether or not applications will be free under the clause is an important point. That will be an issue for the appropriate fees regulations in due course. As I set out when dealing with earlier clauses, those regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I note the views that have been strongly expressed today. Members will have heard what I have said about this previously, and I would be very happy to engage with them in the development of those regulations that we would then bring forward. With that, I would ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

[Bambos Charalambous]

I wish to press amendment 35, and all other amendments in my name and in the names of the other Members.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 3

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

Amendment proposed: 30, in clause 7, page 10, line 25, at end insert—

“4M Acquisition by registration: equal treatment

(1) Where a person (P) is registered as a British citizen under subsection 4L(1), the Secretary of State must—

(a) ensure that other persons applying to be registered are so registered where the same unfairness, act or omission or circumstances apply unless there are material factors relevant to their applications that were not relevant to P’s application;

(b) amend or make policy or guidance in line with the registration of P;

(c) make that new or amended policy or guidance publicly available; and

(d) take such other steps as may be reasonably necessary to draw attention to that new or amended policy or guidance among other people affected by that same unfairness, act or omission or circumstances.

(2) In each Parliamentary session, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of any historical legislative unfairness on the basis of which any person has been registered under subsection 4L(1) and which remains to be corrected by amendment to the British Nationality Act 1981 or such other legislation as may be required.

(3) The report required by subsection (2) must both explain each case of historical legislative unfairness to which it relates and set out the period within which the Secretary of State intends to make the necessary correction to the British Nationality Act 1981 or other legislation.” —(Bambos Charalambous.)

This amendment requires that the Government publicise any change in policy or guidance in order to ensure that there is no unfairness in treatment of British citizens or those who are applying to be registered as British citizens. It also requires the Secretary of State to report and explain any historical legislative unfairness.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 4

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

Amendment proposed: 31, in clause 7, page 11, line 8, at end insert—

“17I Acquisition by registration: equal treatment

(1) Where a person (P) is registered as a British Overseas Territories citizen under subsection 17H(1), the Secretary of State must—

(a) ensure that other persons applying to be registered are so registered where the same unfairness, act or omission or circumstances apply unless there are material factors relevant to their applications that were not relevant to P’s application;

(b) amend or make policy or guidance in line with the registration of P;

(c) make that new or amended policy or guidance publicly available; and

(d) take such other steps as may be reasonably necessary to draw attention to that new or amended policy or guidance among other people affected by that same unfairness, act or omission or circumstances.

(2) In each Parliamentary session, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of any historical legislative unfairness on the basis of which any person has been registered and which remains to be corrected by amendment to the British Nationality Act 1981 or such other legislation as may be required.

(3) The report required by subsection (2) must both explain each case of historical legislative unfairness to which it relates and set out the period within which the Secretary of State intends to make the necessary correction to the British Nationality Act 1981 or other legislation.” —(Bambos Charalambous.)

This amendment requires that the Government publicise any change in policy or guidance in order to ensure that there is no unfairness in treatment of British Overseas Territories citizens or those who are applying to be registered as British citizens. It also requires the Secretary of State to report and explain any historical legislative unfairness.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 5

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

Amendment proposed: 34, in clause 7, page 11, line 8, at end insert—

“(4) After section 23 (Citizens of UK and Colonies who are to become British overseas territories citizens at commencement), insert—

‘23A Acquisition by registration: special circumstances

(1) If an application is made for a person of full age and capacity (“P”) to be registered as a British Overseas citizen, the Secretary of State may cause P to be registered as such a citizen if, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, P would have been, or would have been able to become, a British Overseas citizen but for—

(a) historical legislative unfairness,

(b) an act or omission of a public authority, or

(c) exceptional circumstances relating to P.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), “historical legislative unfairness” includes circumstances where P would have become, or would not have ceased to be, a British subject, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or a British Overseas citizen, if an Act of Parliament or subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978) had, for the purposes of determining a person’s nationality status—

(a) treated males and females equally,

(b) treated children of unmarried couples in the same way as children of married couples, or

(c) treated children of couples where the mother was married to someone other than the natural father in the same way as children of couples where the mother was married to the natural father.

(3) In subsection (1)(b), “public authority” means any public authority within the meaning of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, other than a court or tribunal.

(4) In considering whether to grant an application under this section, the Secretary of State may take into account whether the applicant is of good character.’” —(Bambos Charalambous.)

This amendment seeks to extend the remedy in Clause 7 to those who would have been British Overseas Citizens but for historical unfairness.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 6

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Requirements for naturalisation etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

[Tom Pursglove]

I think it is fair to say that, with all the Blair and Brown documentaries on television at the moment, it is perfect to be thinking about clause IV, for members of the Opposition.

[The Chair]

I do not wish to interrupt the Minister, but he may find that clause IV was not dealt with in the depth that it should have been.

[Tom Pursglove]

That is me told.

Clause 7 applies to three routes to British nationality: naturalisation as a British citizen, naturalisation as a British overseas territories citizen and registration as a British citizen for other British nationals. All these routes require a person to have been in the UK or an overseas territory for a continuous period immediately before applying. This is known as the residential qualifying period. These residence requirements exist to allow a person to show that they have a close and ongoing connection with the United Kingdom.

The residential qualifying period is five years, or three years for spouses and civil partners of British citizens or British overseas territories citizens who are applying for naturalisation. During the five-year period, the person must not have been outside the UK for more than 450 days, must not be subject to immigration time restrictions in the UK or a relevant territory, and must have been lawfully resident. There is discretion in the legislation to overlook excess absences and unlawful presence, but the requirement to have been in the UK or territory on the first day of the residential qualifying period is mandatory. There is no discretion in the current law to grant citizenship to someone who does not meet that requirement.

This means that, for example, a person who has lived in the UK for 10 years, but who was absent from the UK at the point five years before making an application because of a global pandemic, would not be able to qualify, despite their long-term connection with the UK. Under the current legislation, their only option would be to wait until they could meet the requirement.

15:45

Another example could be that of someone from the Windrush generation who had lived in the UK for many years but was prevented from returning and was able to do so only four years ago. Despite their long connection with the UK, this requirement creates a barrier to naturalisation. The clause rectifies this, and quite rightly so, enabling the Secretary of State to waive the requirement for a person to have been physically present in the UK or British overseas territory at the start of that residential qualifying period. It will allow us to grant citizenship in compelling circumstances. We will set out in guidance when we might expect to exercise discretion, as we do for other requirements in which there is discretion. This is a positive change that could benefit those who have close connections with the UK but were outside the UK five years prior to their application, particularly when the absence was down to circumstances beyond their control.

[Bambos Charalambous]

The clause seeks to enable the Secretary of State to waive requirements for naturalisation as a British citizen under section 6, naturalisation as a British overseas territories citizen under section 18, or registration as a British citizen under section 4 of the British Nationality Act 1981. At present, there is no power to waive the requirement to have been present in the UK at the start of the qualifying period except in relation to applications for naturalisation as British citizens from current or former members of the armed forces, which presents a barrier in otherwise deserving cases.

The immediate necessity for the clause arises from the circumstances of people of the Windrush generation, many of whom were deprived of their rights to register their British citizenship by the Home Office’s failure to ensure that people were aware both of their rights and of the need to exercise them. It has since become necessary to use naturalisation without a fee as a means to put people in the position they should have been in all along as British citizens. However, since some people were wrongly exiled from the UK, the remedy has been inadequate for some people who were only recently able to return.

The main barrier stems from the requirement for naturalisation that a person must be present in the UK at a fixed point five or three years before the date of their application to naturalise. The clause therefore seeks to amend the 1981 Act to allow the Secretary of State to waive the requirement that the individual must have been present in the UK or relevant territory at the start of the qualifying period in the special circumstances of a particular case. The waiver will be introduced in relation to the requirements to naturalise a British citizen under section 6 of the 1981 Act, to naturalise as a British overseas territories citizen under section 18 or to register as a British citizen under section 4.

The clause would not have been necessary had the Windrush scandal not happened in the first place, and we wish to place on the record our concerns that it happened because of the hostile environment that was created by the Home Office. Although we welcome clause 8 and will support it, we wish that it had never been necessary because of the injustice of what happened to all those people.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I want to pick up on one thing the shadow Minister mentioned in his speech. He is right that the most profound implications of the clause relate to the correction of wrongs that were done to the Windrush generation, but I slightly disagree with him when he says that it would not have been necessary but for that.

Certain nationality applications always have caused some awkwardness. In the dim and distant past, when I was one of these wicked immigration lawyers, I would have people come to me who were applying to register, and the requirement that they had been in the country five years ago at the start of the residency period would sometimes cause problems. I do not know what I was doing five years ago today, and sometimes it would require a hell of a lot of checking to work it out.

There were the odd occasions where the Home Office kindly returned the applications, because it was going to have to refuse them as the person had perhaps gone abroad for a couple of weeks five years ago. If the Home Office had not done that, it could have just banked the fees and refused the application. The most profound implication is in relation to Windrush, but I think overall that this is a good thing to do anyway and a slightly broader discretion is welcome.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I want to acknowledge the people who were caught up in the Windrush scandal and their tenacity in hanging on in there and sticking it out. I also want to recognise all the different campaign groups, activists and supporters, friends and families of those who suffered so much because of the scandal. I want to take every chance I get to put that on the record.

I regularly talk about feeling frustrated in this place when I passionately argue the case for something or someone but almost never get anywhere—sitting here today, it is of course always going to be nine Members on the Government side and seven on the Opposition side—but I underestimated the importance that people place on MPs speaking up for them and acknowledging their injustice, and I never will again. I did not think it would make such a difference, but it really does make a huge difference to people. That is why, as the SNP’s immigration spokesperson, I take any opportunity to say that what happened to the people who came here as part of the Windrush generation was utterly wrong. Even the solutions went wrong, and there were delays and complications. This clause, today, is good, but that is only right.

[Neil Coyle]

Does the hon. Member share my slight disappointment that it does not go further? Other countries bestow naturalisation on citizens, in particular those who worked for health and social care services throughout the covid crisis. We have non-UK nationals who have worked in health and social care services who could have had their service acknowledged by the Government. The Government have chosen not to do that, despite multiple requests from many MPs of different parties.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I very much agree, because the people we are talking about came here because they were invited. My partner’s family were among them. Thankfully, they were not caught up in this scandal.

We needed people to come here and help rebuild after world war two. People living in the Caribbean were well used to having white people in charge of their country, but what they were not so used to was the racist abuse that would meet them when they reached these shores. They assumed they would be welcome because they were part of the Commonwealth. They fought in our wars. They were invited here. It must have been a huge shock when they got here and somehow that narrative changed.

The narrative is still being used—it is still being used by some people elected to this place—that somehow the gratitude in all of this should be their gratitude to us and that we are somehow doing them some sort of favour. In fact, lots of our wealth was built on the backs of the people we enslaved on those islands. I cannot remember what it is called, but there is such a thing as the collective, inherited trauma that people suffer from. Their descendants were then invited over here to do what we needed done and they were treated the way they were treated, and then they were treated by this Government in the way they were treated in the Windrush scandal.

In the first years, about 5,000 Jamaican nurses came here. We have heard about all of those people from overseas territories who came and supported our health service. Many of them have suffered greatly. Some died during the pandemic, because they put themselves at risk. We needed those 5,000 nurses who came from Jamaica in the first years for our health system, but Jamaica needed them as well. We took them out of the Jamaican health system. We should have been thanking them. We should have been on our knees with gratitude. I do not like the narrative that they are somehow supposed to be grateful to us. So, yes, I would have liked these measures to have gone much further, but I will say that taking away the five-year rule is at least doing something to hold our hands up and say, “We did something wrong, and you don’t deserve to have to wait the five years when you are not the ones at fault.”

[Tom Pursglove]

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East speaks for the whole House in saying that immigration has made an enormously positive contribution to this country over decades. As elected Members and in our communities across the country, we should continually make mention of that and constantly reflect on it—I am certainly very conscious of it.

Equally, I am conscious of the importance of righting the wrongs of what happened in relation to Windrush. There is an absolute commitment at the Home Office to do just that: follow up on Wendy Williams’s recommendations and make sure that they are delivered. As the SNP spokesman said, the clause has benefit beyond Windrush. I am really pleased that it seems the Committee can come together and support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 9

Citizenship: stateless minors

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Tom Pursglove]

The clause amends the provision for registering a child as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen when the child was born in the UK or a territory and has been stateless since birth. Although it applies to both British citizenship and BOTC, it addresses an issue specific to the UK, so I am going to talk about British citizenship. However, parallel changes will be made in relation to BOTC.

It may help if I put the issue in the context of all children born in the United Kingdom. Since 1983, a child born in the UK will be a British citizen automatically only if one of their parents is a British citizen, is settled in the United Kingdom or, from 13 January 2010, is a member of the armed forces.

“Settled” is defined in the British Nationality Act 1981 as being ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and not subject to an immigration time restriction on their stay. That effectively excludes those whose parents only have limited leave to remain or are here illegally. Those exempt from immigration control because of diplomatic service or as members of visiting forces are also not regarded as settled. Any child born in the United Kingdom after 1 January 1983 who was not a British citizen at birth has an entitlement to register as a British citizen if the parent becomes a British citizen or settled in the UK, if the parent joins the armed forces, or if the child lives here for the first 10 years of their life.

In addition, there is provision for children born in the UK who would otherwise be stateless to acquire citizenship. If a child is born in the UK to a parent who is a British overseas territories citizen, British overseas citizen or British subject and would otherwise be stateless, they will acquire the same nationality as the parent. Alternatively, if a child is born in the UK and is, and has always been, stateless, they can apply to be registered as a British citizen before their 22nd birthday based on a period of five years’ residence. Those provisions enable us to meet our obligations under the convention on the reduction of statelessness. That means that if a child is stateless and has had no other citizenship or nationality from birth, they can effectively be registered on reaching the age of five—rather than after the age of 10, like other children born in the UK.

The UK, like many other countries, allows for citizenship to be acquired by descent by a child born abroad to a parent who holds that status by birth. Under most countries’ citizenship laws that happens automatically, but some countries require the parents to register a child’s birth for the child to access citizenship. That is the case for India and Sri Lanka, where a child’s birth needs to be registered at a high commission if they are to be recognised as a citizen.

We are aware that increasing numbers of non-settled parents in the UK are actively deciding not to register their child’s birth at the embassy or high commission, and thus failing to secure their child’s entitlement to their parents’ nationality by descent.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The explanatory note just says that there have been cases. This is a very serious change. Can the Minister give us examples of analysis that has been done and the types of circumstances in which such decisions are taking place? Tell us about the scale. I see no evidence of a significant problem, whereas I do see that the clause could cause significant harm.

15:59

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for prompting me on this. I have a fairly lengthy speech on this clause. I will come to those points, and will illustrate them with some specific case studies, which I hope will be of interest to him.

As I was saying, this results in the child remaining stateless from birth and enables them to be registered as a British citizen once they reach the age of five if they meet the other criteria. We have seen a significant increase in applications, from tens per year to thousands. In 2016-17, there were 32 applications to register stateless children on this basis. That increased in 2017-18 to 1,815 applications. This allows individuals, including those who have overstayed or entered illegally, to acquire British citizenship for their child, which can in turn benefit their own immigration status.

We do not think it fair that parents can effectively secure a quicker route to British citizenship by choosing not to register their child’s birth. In doing so, they are depriving their child of a nationality, which is about not only identity and belonging, but being able to acquire a passport or identity document, and the ability to travel overseas, such as to see family. They are also taking advantage of a provision that is intended to protect those who are genuinely stateless.

I will say, for the avoidance of doubt, that the process of birth registration is not impossibly difficult. It is simply a matter of completing a form and supplying supporting information about the parent’s identity, status and residence, and the child’s birth. The fee to register a child’s birth at the Indian high commission in the UK is £19; it is £53 at the Sri Lankan high commission.

In changing this provision, we want to maintain the ability for genuinely stateless children to benefit, but we want to change the registration provisions so that parents cannot effectively choose statelessness for their child and then benefit from these provisions. That is right and proper, and in line with our international obligations.

We think it is right that children who genuinely cannot acquire a nationality should be able to benefit under the stateless provisions of the 1981 Act. This change reflects our expectation that families should take reasonable steps to acquire a nationality for their child. We will set out in guidance the sort of steps that we think are reasonable, and applications will be considered on an individual basis.

The provisions are not intended to negatively impact children of recognised refugees who are unable to approach the authorities of their former country. Hon. Members may argue that it is important for a child to have a nationality. We agree. That is why we are a signatory to, and are committed to, the 1961 convention.

Why are parents choosing not to acquire a nationality for their child when they can, leaving the child without the ability to travel urgently if needed for five years? Let us look at a typical example that addresses the point raised by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East.

[Neil Coyle]

The Minister refers to a typical example, but I believe that the question put was about the overall number of cases. Will the Minister provide the House with the overall number of cases involved, and specifically the number of cases in which the Government suggest nationality is being deliberately withheld?

[Tom Pursglove]

Let me talk through the case studies in the first instance, because I think it is useful to set this in context. Child X was born in the UK, which their Indian parents had entered as students. The student route is not one that leads to settlement, so they could not have assumed they would be granted indefinite permission to stay. The college they were studying at had its sponsorship licence revoked, and the parents remained here illegally.

At the time of X’s birth, both parents were in the UK without lawful leave. Steps were taken to remove X’s parents, who absconded at one point. However, an application was made to register X as a British citizen, under the stateless minor provision, a few days after their fifth birthday. While they had not approached the Indian high commission to register X’s birth, the parents provided letters they had obtained from the Indian authorities stating that there was no record of the birth having been registered, so they clearly had no fear of approaching the Indian authorities.

X was registered as a British citizen, as the current wording of the British Nationality Act 1981 left us no other option. The parents then made an application to remain in the UK on the basis of family life, which was granted because it would have been harsh for the British child to leave the UK. I hope that Members across the House will agree that, while it is not X’s fault that their parents manipulated the system, it is not right that as a result they can acquire citizenship earlier than other children born here, whose parents have remained in the UK lawfully and been fully compliant.

We have heard the comment that parents should be able to choose which nationality their child has, but this is not about French parents living in the UK with settled status, for example, choosing whether to apply for a French or British passport, as the child holds dual nationality. Nor is it about parents who are dual nationals, such as a parent who is a British citizen by birth and citizen of Bangladesh by descent choosing not to register their child’s birth, which would have allowed them to acquire citizenship of Bangladesh in addition to British citizenship. No: this is about parents who are choosing not to acquire their own nationality for their child and leaving them with no nationality for a significant period until they can eventually qualify for British citizenship.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has published a document entitled “Guidelines on Statelessness nr 4: Ensuring Every Child’s Right to Acquire a Nationality through Articles 1-4 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness”. Those guidelines cover situations where it is possible to acquire the nationality of a parent by registration. They provide that the responsibility to grant nationality to children who would otherwise be stateless is not engaged where a child is born in a state’s territory and is stateless but could acquire a nationality by registration with the state of nationality of a parent, or a similar procedure.

The guidelines go on to say that it is acceptable for contracting states not to grant nationality to children in these circumstances if the child concerned can acquire the nationality of a parent immediately after birth and the state of nationality of the parent does not have any discretion to refuse the grant of nationality. However, that does not apply if a child’s parents are unable to register, or have good reasons for not registering, their child with the state of their own nationality. That must be determined depending on whether an individual could reasonably be expected to take action to acquire the nationality in the circumstances of their particular case. The effect of this clause therefore reflects the approach recommended by the UNHCR.

We understand that parents want the best for their children, and that a future in the UK represents that to them, but it is not right that they choose not to acquire a nationality for their child in order to facilitate that. We want genuinely stateless children to be able to benefit from our stateless child provisions, but we expect those who can easily acquire a nationality for their child to do so.

I will pick up on the point the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark made, because I am sure he wants to prompt me on that, but I first wanted to get through those case studies and set out the Government’s rationale. Clearly, in some cases there is a perverse incentive, and it undoubtedly disadvantages those who are acting in accordance with both the letter and the spirit of the law. It is right to address that, and that is why we are taking the measures proposed in clause 9 to close that loophole.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the Minister provide the overall number of cases that the Government believe fit this category? Will the Government also publish the number of children involved in similar cases where the parents have been trying to regularise their status within the UK? We had examples this morning such as that of my constituent Ade Ronke, who was wrongfully accused by the Home Office of having a prosecution that she did not have—it was a case of mistaken identity. There are cases like that, and hers took seven years to regularise. I mentioned this morning that at least two cases in my constituency took 10 years. There may be many children across the country whose parents have been waiting very many years to sort their status, who could fit into this category, but are being mislabelled by the Government.

[Tom Pursglove]

The direct answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that we can provide details of the number of applications, but we cannot confirm the specific number of cases in the way he is requesting. We know this is happening, and we believe that there is a perverse incentive for people to choose not to acquire a nationality, so that the family as a whole can jump the queue.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

May I confirm that I heard the Minister right? Did he say that the Government and Home Office are clear that this is happening, but they cannot give any indication of the extent?

[Tom Pursglove]

As I have said, we are aware that this is happening. We think it is right to take steps through the Bill, so that those going through the process are not disadvantaged relative to those who are seeking to make use of this loophole.

[Bambos Charalambous]

We believe that clause 9 will disentitle many stateless children who were born and grew up in the UK from their existing statutory right to British citizenship. I have heard what the Minister said. I think it would require a fair bit of cunning and conniving to conceive a child, wait for five years and not register them before applying for citizenship. This applies not just to children aged five, but to children aged five to 17. There may be many children caught up in those circumstances. We therefore strongly oppose this clause and believe that it should be removed.

Let us be absolutely clear about what the Government are trying to change with this clause. The existing law in section 36 of the British Nationality Act 1981 gives effect to schedule 2 expressly for the “purpose of reducing statelessness”. Paragraph 3 of schedule 2 is designed to prevent children born in the UK from growing up without nationality. As Ministers made clear during the passage of the 1981 Act, the provision was needed to ensure continued compliance with our international obligations under the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, to which the Minister referred. In accordance with that convention, the provision entitles someone under the age of 22 born stateless in the UK who has lived in the UK for five continuous years at the point of application and who has always been stateless to register as a British citizen.

Clause 9 inserts a new paragraph 3A into schedule 2 of the 1981 Act for stateless children aged five to 17, requiring the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the child was unable to acquire another nationality before the child is permitted to register as a British citizen. It considers that a child can acquire a nationality where the nationality is the same as that of one of the parents, the person has been entitled to acquire that nationality since birth, and in all circumstances it is reasonable to expect them, or someone acting on their behalf, to take steps to acquire that nationality.

We oppose clause 9 because it is unethical and puts children’s rights in jeopardy. It unnecessarily restricts a vital safeguard intended to protect the rights and best interests of a small group of marginalised children born in the UK. For those affected, statelessness can mean problems accessing rights and services, denied opportunities, unfulfilled potential and a sense of never quite belonging. As worded, the new provision would give the Secretary of State wide discretion to prevent a stateless child born in the UK from acquiring British citizenship, perpetuating their statelessness. The Opposition believe that clause 9 creates an additional and unjustified hurdle to stateless children’s registration as British citizens and to satisfying the Secretary of State that they cannot secure some other nationality. This is in addition to the child having to show that they were born stateless in the UK, have remained stateless throughout their life and have lived at least five continuous years in the UK at the point of exercising their statutory entitlement to be recognised as a British citizen.

For many years, the existing requirements have together proved a high barrier to stateless children securing citizenship of the UK, which is where they were born, where they live and where they are connected to. Clarification of the relevant law by the High Court in 2017 and awareness raising by the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, the European Network on Statelessness and others have enabled several children to apply to be registered under statutory provisions that are expressly intended to reduce statelessness. Prior to this, applications were so few as to be negligible. That indicates the profound inadequacy of the Home Office’s previous operation of the provision, and the strong likelihood that there have been a growing number of children living stateless in the UK, in contravention of the original parliamentary purpose, and following the UK’s international commitment to reducing statelessness.

The purported justification for the draconian clause 9 bears no relation to any matter over which the child has any control or influence, or for which they have any responsibility. It is suggested that some parents may choose not to exercise a right to register their child with the nationality of another country, and may leave their child stateless for the purpose of securing British citizenship, but no evidence has been presented for the idea that some parents may choose not to exercise the right to register their child with the nationality of another country. In any event, an application for registration of a stateless child’s entitlement to British citizenship is a complex matter, and that itself has been an effective and unjust deterrent to the exercising of the right.

The UK Government have provided no evidence to justify restricting children’s rights in such a way. In fact, the leading organisations in the field have evidence to show that stateless children and young people born in the UK already face significant barriers to acquiring British citizenship under existing law, and that has a significant detrimental impact on their wellbeing. Young people have described how their inability to acquire British citizenship leaves them feeling alienated and excluded.

16:15

It is also disturbing that the human rights memorandum prepared for the Bill does nothing more than assert that the Home Office has

“carefully considered the best interests of the child throughout the formation of all the policy given effect to in this Bill.”

It also asserts that the clause is “reasonable” and that the Department is “satisfied” that it is compatible with its international law obligations. Nowhere in any of that is there even an attempt to set out what is in the best interests of the affected children, let alone how they are addressed by the clause or how they may be considered to be outweighed by what would have been substantial considerations.

It is worryingly apparent that children and their rights are again being overlooked or ignored by the Home Office in the clause, just as they are in many other parts of the Bill. That is especially cruel given that the impact will be to leave the child stateless, possibly throughout childhood, in circumstances in which they had been born in the UK, grown up here and developed their identify and connection here alongside their peers, only to discover at some point that, however connected—in every sense of the word—they may be to this country, it rejects them in the most profound sense.

It is disturbing to hear how young people have described their inability to acquire British citizenship to various organisations working in the area. They have said that it leaves them feeling alienated and excluded. For instance, one anonymous young person in the situation said:

“When I had just become a teenager, or possibly just before, I recall feeling very left out. The school was organising a day trip to France. I couldn’t go because of my status in the UK. I didn’t really understand what this status was and why I should be different. All I knew was that my friends were going on a trip and I had to stay behind. This came up more than once.

At school and with friends I would make up excuses as to why I couldn’t go. I felt like I had to navigate all this on my own as I was trying to fit in, but I couldn’t do everything my friends and peers could do. It did not seem fair. I could change my hair or my accent and do so much else to fit in or not as I wanted, but my status was something I had no control over. I felt alienated.”

That was a young person represented by the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens.

Here is another, who said:

“The UK was my home and yet it wasn’t for me the safe and secure place that it was for others. I belonged here but that belonging wasn’t safe and secure like it was for others. I grew up with these feelings and it affected my confidence. I questioned my identity because I understood I was British but that was in some way not accepted or acknowledged. I wondered where I did belong if not in the UK. I didn’t know anywhere else. I felt lost.

My struggles with these feelings continued throughout the rest of my childhood. I became more cautious with friends and other people. I worried that I might not be accepted by them and I shied away because I did not want to risk being shunned or ridiculed or rejected.”

How deeply upsetting it is to hear how those young people have been deprived of a sense of belonging and equal status in the country they call home.

I and Opposition colleagues believe that the clause, if adopted, will exacerbate existing challenges leading to the further exclusion, alienation and marginalisation of children and young people in the UK. In short, it is an affront to domestic and international law concerning children’s rights and statelessness. It is also more basically an affront to children. It will impose the most profound of exclusions on children—denial of any citizenship, particularly that of the place where they were born and live, and the only place that they know. The exclusion and alienation inflicted on children through their formative years will be highly damaging to their personal development and any feelings of security and belonging. That is why the Opposition will vote against the clause.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I wish to echo everything the shadow Minister said in outlining why we passionately oppose the clause. As I said in earlier speeches, and has been illustrated by many hon. Members, citizenship is fundamental to a person’s identity. It provides a status and security that no visa or immigration leave can ever match. When talking about statelessness, we may sometimes be talking about people who have neither citizenship nor any immigration status. Organisations that work with stateless kids have provided myriad case studies and examples of the dreadful impact that it can have on them. In essence, they are one of the groups most deserving of our protection and consideration—those without any citizenship at all. Without citizenship, a whole host of other rights become almost impossible, leaving that person with a huge gap in their identity, security and sense of belonging.

We talk often about children who belong to recognised stateless populations, such as Kuwaiti Bidoon, Kurds, Rohingya or Palestinians. Also, there are children who suffer from discrimination under the nationality laws of other countries—the same type of discrimination that has existed and that we have been trying to correct in British nationality law. They could be children in state care, for example, particularly if one of the parents is not available or not co-operative in proving links or nationality.

As matters stand, stateless children and young adults under 22 can register as British if they were born here, have always been stateless and meet the five-year residency requirement. Even now, it is not always a straightforward process, as has been explained by the European Network on Statelessness. Lots of hurdles remain: we have touched on registration fees, as well as lack of knowledge and awareness of the rights of stateless children and challenges in providing proof. I would be keen to rectify that, but instead, for some reason, the Home Office is taking it upon itself to erect further hurdles, making it more difficult, not easier, for children under 18 to be registered as British. Clause 9 restricts access to registration of stateless kids, and is worded in such a way that it gives a broad discretion to the Secretary of State to decline applications, which we believe is in breach of international law.

We have not heard at all from the Government today what assessment they have made of the impact that will have on statelessness. There is no doubt in my mind that it will increase statelessness among children, but that does not appear to have been weighed up in the Government’s reckoning. That is absolutely contrary to the intention of the 1981 Act, which rightly set out to reduce statelessness.

There are three key points: first, the case has simply not been made. There is a bland assertion in the explanatory notes that there have been cases where parents have made that choice. But today, despite pressing for some sort of analysis of the scale of the issue, essentially what we have been given is one extreme case, as the shadow Minister said. I am utterly unconvinced that there are lots of parents going underground and running away from the Home Office all for the sake of trying to secure statelessness in this manner. That case has simply not been made today. That is a wholly inadequate explanation. It actually reflects where Home Office policy making sometimes goes wrong: isolated examples where the rules have arguably been used for purposes slightly beyond how the Home Office would like them to be used are identified, and then an utterly disproportionate response is forthcoming, which may be able to stop those isolated cases but also stops a lot of absolutely deserving cases, and impacts on totally innocent individuals. To put it succinctly, the baby is thrown out with the bath water.

We have called for greater detail: how many cases? We need more examples than one extreme case. What, ultimately, is the problem? There was a lot of talk about queue jumping, but it does not impact on others who perhaps have to wait 10 years for registration. Their rights are not impacted at all. At the end of the day, in one extreme case, a child who has done nothing wrong may end up registered as British five years before they otherwise might be.

Secondly, on international laws, the shadow Minister says that in our view this is in breach of the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness. The Minister made the case that the UNHCR guidelines on statelessness allow a small discretion for the state to withhold conferring citizenship where the nationality of a parent was available to the child immediately, without any legal or administrative hurdles, and could not be refused by the other state concerned. However, the wording of clause 9 goes significantly beyond what is allowed in the guidance. The clause will insert new paragraph 3A into the British Nationality Act 1981, with subsections 1(d) and 2(c) both going beyond what is permissible. The former appears to allow the Secretary of State some evaluative leeway about what is and what is not possible in terms of accessing another nationality. The question is: why not leave that as a pure question of fact? The latter subsection also introduces leeway where neither the convention nor guidance allows for it. Instead, the very limited exception that is allowed is where the other nationality is available to the child immediately, without any administrative impediments, hurdles, fees or similar obstacles, so I fear that the Home Office will end up in court again.

My final and most important point is that this will cause so much more harm than good. There has been no indication at all that the Home Office has undertaken any sort of balancing exercise. Whatever problem the Home Office is trying to fix—essentially, we have had an anecdote—the damage that will be done goes way beyond it. Families will not risk a huge fee if they have all sorts of doubts about what the Secretary of State will do with her discretion. We fear that many more people risk being unreasonably refused registration, prolonging their statelessness. Where is the assessment of the best interests of the children involved? Where is the assessment of the number of stateless kids who may be impacted by the Bill? There really has been a wholly inadequate justification for it.

I have a final plea to the Minister. Even if he will not revisit the need for some sort of response to the type of case that he has identified and spoken about today, will he at least revisit how far the clause is going? As I say, it is our strong view that it might have prevented that anecdotal case from happening, but it will cause all sorts of damage way beyond that. We also think that the wording is inconsistent with the UN guidelines that the Minister has cited. If he still feels compelled to do something, he should at least revisit how the clause has been worded. Otherwise, I think he will very much regret that the outcome will simply be thousands more stateless kids in the United Kingdom.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The UK is bound by the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, as we have heard. That focuses on protecting the stateless child and preventing childhood statelessness. It requires only that the applicant is stateless, and not that they cannot reasonably acquire another nationality, as it says in the Bill. The UK Government say there is a problem that needs addressing through clause 9 and that would justify departing from the safeguards established by the convention, yet no evidence is offered.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has just said, he intervened on the Minister to ask for the evidence. The Minister said he had a long speech and would come to that, but he did not do so. He gave one piece of anecdotal evidence. I know that much of the Bill will have been drafted prior to his recently coming into the role, and I appreciate that this must be a baptism of fire for him, but I ask him to look more closely at the Bill. Why introduce it, if there is no evidence that there is an increase in abuse? There is no evidence. If there is no evidence, there is no problem, and if there is no problem, there is no need for clause 9. The UK Government really must not legislate to enable breaches of the commitment in the 1961 convention and the principle of the best interests of the child in UK domestic law.

[Neil Coyle]

I will not repeat the excellent points that have been made by colleagues, and I will try to be brief. My first point is about international law. It seems that most responsible countries strive to reduce the number of stateless children, but the Bill, and specifically clause 9, leaves people in limbo for a much longer period. It feels as though global Britain is acting in a slightly squeamish way about its international responsibilities on this issue and on other areas, so my first question to the Minister is: which other countries use a similar process, given what he has said today about how this is used in examples?

I agree with the comments just made. The Government are presenting a Bill and a clause that are based on hearsay. The Minister is asking us specifically to rely on hearsay and one anecdote. We all remember the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), talking about someone who was not evicted from this country because their human rights had been encroached because they had a cat. It turned out to be totally false; yet that was used by the then Home Secretary at a Conservative party conference to try to make a very similar point.

16:29

I would prefer having statistics and not assertions before us in Committee to justify such a huge barrier to families. I gave a figure earlier from Citizens UK that suggested that there are 900 stateless children paying citizenship application fees, so big numbers of people are affected. and it has a big impact on them. This is a new legal hurdle, which for the vast majority of children, according to the Minister, would still lead to an inevitable outcome. Even in the single case that he represented, it seems unlikely that a best interests consideration of the child involved would conclude that their best interests were served by forcing them to undergo an application to an alternative state—a country that they may never have visited.

Then there is the issue of the huge and unjust burden that the clause imposes. It imposes new costs on individuals. It imposes new bureaucracy on the Home Office and, by default, the taxpayer. The process is not free to cover. The Government are inventing yet again another bit that the Home Office has to undertake and that it could well get wrong, leading to further delays within a system that, as we talked about this morning, is already broken. It takes far too long to make even seemingly straightforward decisions, and too often makes mistakes, as I have seen through my constituency casework. Of course, this solely acts as a delay to eventual decisions. It is an extension of the hostile environment that we were told by the Government was being dismantled; yet here we have a very specific clause where a new imposition extends the apparatus of the hostile environment through the Home Office.

That imposition comes back to the fundamental legal question. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate referred to the human rights memorandum, which says that the Home Office has carefully considered the best interests of the child. Let us see that advice, please, Minister. Publish the full advice on the human rights considerations because, as was touched on this morning, in the case of R (Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens and O) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, it was specifically found by the Court of Appeal and the High Court that the Secretary of State had failed to conduct any kind of assessment of the best interests of the children.

It would be an irresponsible Government, an irresponsible Home Office and an irresponsible Minister who risked making the same mistake, at huge human cost to the families and children affected, huge administrative cost to the Department, and huge cost through legal fees and court processes, which reached the same conclusion that the Government failed to do here what they failed to do previously.

[Tom Pursglove]

We have had a very wide ranging debate in relation to these matters, with views expressed that are sincerely and strongly felt. I do not doubt that for a moment. Let me be clear that genuinely stateless children will still be able to benefit from the registration provisions. This change is to prevent people from benefiting by choosing not to acquire their own nationality for their child where they are able to do so.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the Minister for giving way, because it is important that he addresses the question that has been raised successively. The clause goes against the drift of the rest of part 1, which is rectifying anomalies. This potentially creates one, and one that will come to land heavily on the Home Office in the future, as well as those who will be affected by it. It is incumbent on him, before we vote on it, to explain clearly the extent of the problem. He has given only one anecdote as the justification for it. Will he use the opportunity to do that now?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. As Opposition Members will know, the way that I go about my work is to always try to be as constructive and helpful as possible. With that in mind, I will gladly write to the Committee setting out in greater detail our rationale for taking this approach, and as much information as I can to justify it.

As I say, there is a fairness issue here that we believe needs to be addressed. The MK case was cited, and it is worth recognising that in his conclusion Judge Ockelton made the comment that it opens an obvious route to abuse. We are satisfied that what we are proposing complies with our obligations under the statelessness conventions, and all our obligations that flow from that. I commend that the clause stand part of the Bill, with the very clear undertaking that I will provide the information that I have promised.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Division 7

Ayes: 8

---

Conservative: 8

Noes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)

16:29

Adjourned till Thursday 21 October at half-past Eleven o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House

NBB16 Public Law Project (PLP) and JUSTICE (evidence on the legal aid provisions of the NAB Bill)

NBB17 Public Law Project (PLP) and JUSTICE (draft amendments in respect of the legal aid provisions of the Bill)

NBB18 Public Law Project (PLP) and JUSTICE (evidence on the wider implications of the NAB Bill for access to justice)

NBB19 Modern Slavery Policy Unit of Justice and Care and the Centre for Social Justice

NBB20 Alp Mehmet, Chairman of Migration Watch UK

NBB21 Chagossian Voices

NBB22 Reprieve

NBB23 Families Together Coalition

NBB24 Human Trafficking Foundation

NBB25 Helen Bamber Foundation

NBB26 Australia Women in Support of Women on Nauru

NBB27 Asylum Seekers Advocacy Group (ASAG) and Doctors for Justice (D4J), Australia

NBB28 Dr Ryan Essex, University of Greenwich

NBB29 Logistics UK

NBB30 ECPAT UK (Every Child Protected Against Trafficking)

NBB31 National Justice Project

NBB32 Associate Professor Maria O’Sullivan, Deputy Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Faculty of Law, Monash University, Australia

NBB33 Joint submission from the European Network on Statelessness (ENS), the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens (PRCBC), and Amnesty International UK re: (Part 1, Clause 9 “stateless minors”)

NBB34 UNCHR, the UN Refugee Agency

NBB35 Duke Law International Human Rights Clinic

NBB36 Justice and Peace Office of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney

NBB37 Andrew and Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney

NBB38 Statewatch

Building Safety Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Philip Davies, Peter Dowd, Clive Efford, †Mrs Maria Miller

† Amesbury, Mike (Weaver Vale) (Lab)

† Bailey, Shaun (West Bromwich West) (Con)

† Baillie, Siobhan (Stroud) (Con)

† Byrne, Ian (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)

Cadbury, Ruth (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)

Clarke, Theo (Stafford) (Con)

† Clarke-Smith, Brendan (Bassetlaw) (Con)

† Cooper, Daisy (St Albans) (LD)

† Hopkins, Rachel (Luton South) (Lab)

† Hughes, Eddie (Walsall North) (Con)

† Logan, Mark (Bolton North East) (Con)

† Mann, Scott (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

† Osborne, Kate (Jarrow) (Lab)

† Pincher, Christopher (Tamworth) (Con)

† Rimmer, Ms Marie (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)

† Saxby, Selaine (North Devon) (Con)

† Young, Jacob (Redcar) (Con)

Yohanna Sallberg, Adam Mellows-Facer, Abi Samuels, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 19 October 2021

(Afternoon)

[Mrs Maria Miller in the Chair]

Building Safety Bill

14:00

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)]

On a point of order, Mrs Miller. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I am just marginally embarrassed that I am starting that experience by making an apology. I would like to make a correction to the Committee. When we were debating clause 85 this morning, I said that the secondary legislation for the form and content of safety case reports will follow the affirmative procedure. That was incorrect; I should have said the negative procedure. That was purely a slip of a tongue, but I would like to assure hon. Members that consultation will be held before the regulations are finalised. An ongoing programme of work is under way to support the smooth introduction of the safety case regime.

[The Chair]

I am sure that the Committee is very grateful to the Minister for clarifying that at the beginning of the sitting. That neatly brings us on to further consideration of clause 85 stand part.

Clause 85

Safety case report

Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing clause 86 stand part.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87

Mandatory reporting requirements

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 87 creates requirements for mandatory occurrence reporting for occupied higher-risk buildings under the new building safety regime. The Government recognise the success of mandatory occurrence reporting systems in improving the safety of industries the world over, including the UK’s civil aviation industry.

We concur with the recommendation in the independent review that systems of mandatory occurrence reporting be set up under the new building safety regime, and the clause contributes to its implementation. It requires the principal accountable person of an occupied higher-risk building to establish and operate an effective system for capturing and reporting safety occurrences. Accountable persons will be required to report such occurrences to the Building Safety Regulator. A safety occurrence will be defined in secondary legislation; the intention is to capture any structural or fire safety event or situation that presents a significant risk to life.

Accountable persons will be responsible for taking all reasonable steps to ensure that mandatory occurrences are identified, and that when they are the Building Safety Regulator is informed as soon as is practicable. In addition to that immediate notification, accountable persons will be responsible for ensuring that a full report is submitted to the Building Safety Regulator within a specified timeframe. Once received, the Building Safety Regulator can choose to use a mandatory occurrence report as a basis for further investigative action if necessary. The situations or events that will constitute reportable occurrences, along with information needed in the reports and reporting timescales, will be prescribed in secondary legislation.

Safety occurrences will represent the most serious of safety-related incidents. Non-compliance with mandatory occurrence reporting will be a criminal offence. Mandatory occurrence reporting will ensure that the Building Safety Regulator receives the crucial intelligence needed to identify systemic issues in the management of a building’s safety and take effective enforcement measures.

We expect reports received by the Building Safety Regulator to contain valuable lessons learned and allow for identification of emerging safety trends across the built environment. The Building Safety Regulator will be able to share that useful information with industry to improve safety standards and best practices across the built environment. For example, lessons learned from a series of reported safety occurrences relating to fires may allow others in industry to amend their fire safety protocols and raise safety standards accordingly. Alternatively, a reported rise in a type of safety occurrence, such as a widely used fire door discovered to be defective, may prompt industry to identify otherwise unknown risks.

We also expect that the sharing of such information will further underline to industry the value and importance of reporting safety incidents, helping to promote a more positive, proactive culture around safety reporting. Mandatory occurrence reporting will ensure that incidents too serious for voluntary occurrence reporting are captured, reported to the Building Safety Regulator, and learned from. The two reporting systems, along with whistleblowing, will work in a complementary manner to engender a more proactive culture around safety reporting within industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88

Keeping information about higher-risk buildings

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Eddie Hughes]

The Government are committed to bringing about the biggest improvement in building and fire safety for a generation. The clause creates a power to make regulations to require a golden thread of information for all occupied buildings in scope of the more stringent regime.

The golden thread is the information that allows someone to understand a building and keep it safe, and the information management needed to ensure that the information is accurate, easily understandable and up to date. The clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to require the people responsible for those buildings—the accountable person—to put in place and maintain the golden thread. The clause also creates the power to make regulations to set out the information and documents that must be stored in the golden thread, and to set out standards that the golden thread must be held to. The independent review recommended that a golden thread be put in place for all buildings in scope of the regime.

We agree with that recommendation, recognising that it is critical to ensure that buildings are safe. Currently, there is a lack of information about buildings in the new more stringent regime. That lack of information makes it difficult to manage and maintain those buildings safely and to ensure that they are safe for those who live and work in them. We are also aware that, even if there is information, it is often not kept up to date, is not accurate or is not accessible.

The clause will ensure that the information is recorded and that it is accurate, kept up to date and accessible to those who need it. Having accurate, up-to-date information is critical to ensuring that buildings are managed safely. Clause 88 is vital to ensuring that all buildings in scope of the new, more stringent regime are safe and remain safe.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs Miller. I have one question for the Minister about the golden thread. How will it apply to buildings that are converted by permitted development and are in scope—that is, buildings of 18 metres and above or of seven storeys or more?

[Eddie Hughes]

Regardless of how buildings have ended up in scope—whether through permitted development rights or otherwise—they will be part of the regime. Therefore, the golden thread will apply. My understanding of permitted development rights, however, is that currently a permitted development right cannot convert to a building over 18 metres. Someone would have to apply for planning permission.

In the absence of further questions, this feels cheeky but speaking as someone who has managed buildings from construction to operation and seen documents handed over that are out of date, inconsistent or incomplete, I know that it is incredibly important to have that golden thread running through not only newly constructed buildings, but existing buildings. It will be invaluable to their safe management.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89

Provision of information etc to the regulator, residents and other persons

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 90 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 89 creates a power to make regulations to ensure that the information in the golden thread is shared with those who need it. This will help ensure that all buildings in scope of the more stringent regime are safe. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to require the people responsible for these buildings—the accountable persons—to share information with prescribed persons. Prescribed persons include the Building Safety Regulator, residents, other accountable persons in the building and owners of residential units within the building, among others.

Clause 89 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to set out what information must be shared, when and how it must be shared and in what format. We know that it is currently difficult to access information about buildings in scope of the new, more stringent safety regime. Clause 89 will ensure that the appropriate information from the golden thread is shared with the people who need it. Having easily accessible information is critical to manage buildings safely, for residents to feel safe in their homes, for people to understand their responsibilities in keeping their home safe and for the Building Safety Regulator to be able to regulate effectively.

The independent review recommended that information on buildings should be available and that this would drive greater accountability throughout the system, which would support safer buildings. We agree with this recommendation, recognising that it is critical that information is available on buildings in scope of the more stringent regulatory regime. Clause 89 is vital to ensuring that information is available on these buildings.

Clause 90 requires the golden thread to be handed over whenever the person responsible for the building—the accountable person—changes. This applies to all occupied buildings in scope of the more stringent regime. The golden thread is the information that allows someone to understand a building and keep it safe, and the information management needed to ensure the information is accurate, easily understandable and up to date.

Clause 90 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to set out what information is handed over, when and how the information is handed over, and in what format it needs to be. We know that currently there is a lack of information. This lack of information makes it difficult to manage and maintain buildings. The clause will ensure that the information is handed over and is not lost when the accountable person leaves their role. Regulations under this clause will ensure that the information is handed over in a timely and appropriate manner. The independent review recommended that a golden thread is put in place for all buildings in scope of the regime and that there are requirements to ensure the golden thread is handed over throughout the life cycle of the building. We agree with that recommendation, recognising that this is critical to ensuring that buildings are safe.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91

Residents’ engagement strategy

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 91, page 99, line 20, after “management” insert “and ownership structure”.

This amendment would ensure that residents of buildings receive information about the ownership of a building.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part and clause 92 stand part.

[Mike Amesbury]

The amendment would strengthen the provisions laid out in clauses 91 and 92 by bringing the ownership of the building, as well as its management, under their scope. This issue has been raised by residents and leaseholders going through that ping-pong of building safety remediation. The amendment would enhance transparency and, ultimately, the building safety regime. I know that a number of colleagues will want to interject and contribute to the broader debate about residents’ engagement, drawing on my earlier comment on what makes a good residents’ engagement strategy.

14:15

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate under your chairship, Mrs Miller. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale for pointing out vital it is that we understand the ownership structure. For example, I have been having talks with leaseholders in Luton South who live in buildings with dangerous cladding.

Residents often do not have much time to investigate complex ownership structures because they have jobs to hold down. It is absolutely right, however, that they should know who owns their building and how they can follow that golden thread of ownership when there are issues. It is important that the proposed resident’s engagement strategy hears their voices on every aspect that matters to them.

Constituents living in the Point Red building in Luton have told me of their difficulties in finding out where they need to go when issues become apparent, particularly given that the entity that built the property no longer exists. They have spent a lot of time trying to find out who now owns it, but that information has proved difficult to come by. Members on both sides of the House know how important our residents’ voices are—we hear them loud and clear.

I fully support the amendment, but, at the same time, the voices of residents and leaseholders are equally important to the overall engagement strategy.

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank hon. Members for raising this important matter, but I am afraid that the Government are not able to accept the amendment. However, having listened to the hon. Member for Luton South speak, I now understand more fully the intended purpose of the amendment. Personally, I feel that the role of the accountable person fulfils the intention that she seeks.

As we have touched on, ownership of buildings can be complex. We need to be able to point to the person or entity that residents can go to if they have the kinds of concerns mentioned by the hon. Lady. The accountable person fulfils that purpose and will be a useful addition to the needs of her constituents. Our assessment is that this amendment would not deliver improved building safety protections for residents in high-rise buildings.

Clause 91 requires that the accountable person must prepare strategy “for promoting the participation” of residents in decision making about building safety and decisions relating to the management of the building or performance of the accountable person’s duties. Inserting “ownership structure” in the clause would not require residents to be provided with information on the ownership of the building, but it would require an accountable person to include in their strategy ways to promote the participation of residents in decisions related to the building’s ownership structure.

I assure hon. Members that their intention of ensuring that residents have information on and are able to hold to account those responsible for their safety has been met by the Bill. Information about accountable persons will, by virtue of clause 73, be publicly available on the register of higher-risk buildings, which will be published by the Building Safety Regulator.

In addition, clause 77 requires important details about the identity of those responsible for managing building safety to be displayed in a conspicuous position in the building by the principal accountable person. This will further ensure that residents have information about key people responsible for their buildings. Clause 90 provides that where there is a change in accountable persons, the regulator must be notified and residents given updated information about their accountable person through the notice displayed conspicuously in the building. This ensures that when there are changes to who is responsible for a building’s safety, this is captured and residents will be informed. Therefore, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Weaver Vale to withdraw the amendment.

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 91 and 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93

Complaints procedure operated by principal accountable person

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 94 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

The Government are committed to making sure that residents’ safety concerns and views are never ignored by those responsible for managing the safety of their building. Residents need to be able to hold the accountable person to account when things go wrong, and be confident that prompt, effective action is taken. Clause 93 places an obligation on those responsible for managing a high-rise building to establish and operate an internal complaints process to handle and resolve residents’ complaints about their building’s safety. This process should be clear, quick and effective.

In buildings that are managed by multiple accountable persons, a single complaints system will be established. Each accountable person will be responsible for safety concerns raised by residents in the area of the building for which they are responsible. The complaints system will provide residents of all tenures and owners of residential units in high-rise buildings with a clear process to raise safety concerns, and with a right not to have those concerns ignored. Residents will be able to further escalate their concerns to the new Building Safety Regulator.

The independent review found that residents did not have a strong enough voice in matters about the safety of their homes, and that residents struggled to get their complaints addressed. The Bill addresses this by placing an obligation on those responsible for managing high-rise buildings to establish and operate an internal complaints system for residents to raise their safety concerns.

In addition to an internal complaints system, residents will be able to further escalate complaints relating to building safety to the new Building Safety Regulator. This will be available where the accountable person has not resolved the safety concerns. We intend that secondary legislation will set out how the complaints process will operate, and what subsequent action the regulator must consider in response. The new Building Safety Regulator will consult the residents panel before establishing its complaints system and, subsequently, before any significant change is made. The accountable persons’ and Building Safety Regulator’s complaints processes are vital in increasing transparency. Strengthening building safety complaints handling in high-rise buildings is critical to providing residents with a strong voice.

[Mike Amesbury]

I seek clarity on clause 93(2), which says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the establishment and operation of complaints systems under this section.”

Should that be “will” rather than “may”?

[The Chair]

Can I check that no one else wants to speak? In that case, can I bring the Minister in to respond?

[Eddie Hughes]

You can, Mrs Miller, now that I have phoned a friend. I am delighted to inform the hon. Member for Weaver Vale that this is standard legal language. However, as we have set out, there will be an obligation on the Building Safety Regulator to provide that complaints process anyway, so that is mandated. It will also be mandated that accountable persons, or principal accountable persons, have a complaints process. Regardless of the semantics of the interpretation of that word, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that complaints processes will be in place for both those entities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 93 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

We are going to have a vote in the Chamber shortly. We will start to consider the next clause, but I alert Members to the fact that when we have a vote, we will suspend the Committee for 15 minutes.

Clause 95

Duties on residents and owners

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 96 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 95 places three clear obligations on residents aged 16 years or over and on owners of residential units in high-rise buildings in relation to keeping their homes and buildings safe.

The first of those obligations requires all residents, irrespective of tenure, to not act or behave in a way that creates a significant risk of fire or structural failure in their building. Secondly, the clause requires residents and owners of residential units to refrain from interfering with safety items that form part of the common parts. By interfering, we mean damaging or removing the safety item or hindering its function without a reasonable excuse for doing so. Thirdly, residents will have to provide the accountable person with relevant information if it is reasonably required by the accountable person to fulfil their safety duties. We believe those obligations to be proportionate and reasonable.

Turning to clause 96, residents have an important part to play in keeping their building safe, and we know that the majority of people who live in high-rise buildings take their safety responsibilities seriously. As part of the new regulatory regime, our aim is to make sure that sufficient requirements, incentives and powers are in place to prevent and put right risks that are posed by behaviours that residents might engage in. The aim is for accountable persons to work with residents in the first instance, but with the ability to escalate issues to the county court where required. This will help to ensure the appropriate and effective assessment and management of building safety risks for all residents in high-rise buildings.

A contravention notice issued by the accountable person and served on a resident is a means to notify that resident of a breach of their obligations and give them the information they need to put it right. The notice will be issued only where it appears that a contravention has occurred. Where the breach involves interference with a safety item, a sum to either repair or replace that item—not exceeding a reasonable amount—may be requested from the resident.

We believe that to be a fair and proportionate approach, as the majority of residents will want to keep their home and building safe and will not interfere with safety items provided to help them do so. Getting this right is particularly important: it underpins the system of accountability for the accountable person responsible for mitigating fire and structural safety risks, as it provides a proportionate means to discharge their duties in relation to individual dwellings.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller.

If an accountable person is potentially utilising their position to bully a resident, what recourse does that resident have to challenge the notice, which may end up in eviction? What safeguards are in place for the resident? I find it concerning that this seems to be an awful lot of power. We have talked about imbalances of power on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. My worry is that this is a further imbalance of power, so what recourse will residents have to challenge a notice that is served by the accountable person?

[Eddie Hughes]

There are two assurances that I can give: first, the natural line of escalation would not be to eviction. The purpose of clause 96 is simply for the accountable person to be able to discharge their duty and keep the building safe. The first line of action would be for the accountable person, if they thought that a resident had done something to affect a safety item in the building, to try to deal with that on a lower level. If it was not immediately possible to do so or if the safety risk was greater, they would have to move to the issuing of the notice.

14:30

In terms of bullying, there is still a complaints process. I fully appreciate that the hon. Gentleman might ask how a resident could have faith in the system when they would be complaining to the accountable person. The reason is that the Building Safety Regulator now sits as a tier above the system. If someone was not happy—if, for the sake of argument, an inappropriate notice was issued, or the resident felt that that was the case—they would be able to make a complaint to the accountable person’s complaint process in the first instance, and subsequently to the Building Safety Regulator. The fact that the Building Safety Regulator sits above all this, and is distinct and completely separate from the accountable person, should offer the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman mentions. I completely understand the point that he is making, because any prospect of the system being used in such a punitive way would be inappropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 95 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97

Access to premises

[Eddie Hughes]

I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 97, page 104, line 40, after “premises” insert

“who is aged 16 or over”.

This amendment provides that requests to residents to enter premises made under this clause may only be made to residents who are aged 16 or over.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

Amendment 56 is minor and technical. It will ensure that a request for access by the accountable person can be made only to a resident aged 16 or over. The age of 16 is used, as opposed to 18, because it is the youngest age at which a resident may be granted a tenancy. The amendment will bring clause 97 in line with clause 95, where duties on residents and owners apply only to those aged 16 and over, and I commend it to the Committee.

The purpose of clause 97 is to provide the person responsible for managing building safety in high-rise buildings—the accountable person—with a means by which they can access premises in the building. The Government are committed to ensuring that residents, their homes and their buildings remain safe from fire and structural risks. Clause 97 will enable accountable persons responsible for managing safety in high-rise buildings to carry out their duties effectively, minimising the risk of fire or structural safety risk.

The clause is closely linked to clause 95, which deals with duties on residents and owners. Residents aged 16 and over and owners of residential units are required to comply with the three duties. The duties require all residents, irrespective of tenure, not to act in a way or behave in a manner that creates a significant risk of fire or structural failure in the building; to refrain from interfering with safety items that form part of the common area; and to comply with a request made by the accountable person for information reasonably required to carry out their duties.

The accountable person can request access to premises only to assess or manage building safety risks or to determine whether a resident has breached their duties. To be enforceable, a request by the accountable person must be made in writing, with at least 48 hours’ notice, explaining why access is required and giving a reasonable time for when access to the premises is intended. If the resident refuses access, the accountable person can apply to the county court for an order requiring the resident to give access and, if necessary, allowing the accountable person to gather necessary information, such as by taking photographs or measurements.

Amendment 56 agreed to.

Clause 97, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 98

Duty on regulator to enforce Part

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 99 to 101 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 98 places a statutory duty on the Building Safety Regulator to enforce the provisions of part 4. As per the clauses we have already discussed, part 4 is concerned with occupied buildings. Among other things, it defines a building safety risk and it defines and places duties on the accountable person in relation to risks in their building, including duties regarding resident engagement.

Alongside clause 4, part 4 also makes it clear that the Building Safety Regulator will be the responsible regulator for the higher-risk building regime during occupation. The reason for placing the duty to enforce breaches of that regime in the Bill is, I hope, self-explanatory. It cements the position in law of the new Building Safety Regulator.

Clause 99 introduces a power for the Building Safety Regulator to ensure compliance with the new regime where a higher-risk building is occupied, through the use of compliance notices. The new regime imposes a range of new requirements for the management of higher-risk buildings, particularly on the new position of the accountable person. The accountable person has a significant role in ensuring that residents are kept informed with important building safety information and, most importantly, kept safe in their homes.

These compliance notices will provide the Building Safety Regulator with effective tools to enforce the relevant part 4 requirements where contraventions have occurred or are likely to occur, and will be available as urgent action notices with shorter deadlines where people in or around a building are at risk of imminent danger, where immediate action is required.

The use of compliance notices will also afford accountable persons the opportunity for correction before formal prosecution action. Nevertheless, the possibility of a custodial sentence upon conviction for breaching a compliance notice is designed to incentivise the accountable person to comply with their requirements and will further support the Building Safety Regulator to ensure that duties under part 4 of the Bill are being met.

The provision complements clause 37, which makes provision for the use of compliance and stop notices during the design and construction of a building, although there is no provision for stop notices in clause 99. Together, the clauses ensure building control authorities will have consistent enforcement tools available to them during the entire lifecycle of a building.

The compliance and enforcement measures in the Bill are appropriately tough. It is not enough that there is an accountable person for a building; the new regulator must be certain that the accountable person is carrying out their duties and responsibilities as they should, in line with the regime. The design of the new regime and the related requirements in part 4 of the Bill are only part of how we are making buildings safer. The most perfect regime could be created, but without oversight and enforcement, it would completely fail to function.

Clause 100 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations where necessary to ensure that compliance notices issued to accountable persons are as effective as possible. Examples of matters that the Secretary of State can make regulations about include the form and content of notices, or the amendment or withdrawal of notices. The provision allows for amendments where different regulatory bodies may need to be informed of compliance notices, where the period for compliance may need to be extended or where any other change is deemed necessary.

The flexibility the new regulations afford will allow the Building Safety Regulator to issue compliance notices that directly respond to the contemporary needs of the industry. The requirement on the Building Safety Regulator to inform relevant bodies where compliance notices have been issued will be important in ensuring that buildings of concern are on the radar of the relevant authorities. That will align regulatory action across those bodies to avoid the overlap of enforcement action and ensure that each regulatory body is taking appropriate action within its jurisdiction to enforce compliance.

Moving on to clause 101, more than four years ago the Grenfell Tower fire made clear to all of us the consequences that can occur when building safety requirements are not complied with. We have discussed in respect of previous clauses in this part why the Bill creates the new position of the accountable person to deliver safety for residents and others in and around higher-risk buildings. We have also discussed the various duties that this part of the Bill imposes on accountable persons and the provisions of the previous couple of clauses for enforcing those duties by means of compliance notices.

This clause underpins the new regulatory regime for occupied higher-risk buildings, reflecting the potential gravity and consequences of not adhering to the part 4 duties. It makes it abundantly clear that, where any of the duties are breached and have the potential to cause death or serious injury to those in or around the building, the Building Safety Regulator will not have to go through the compliance notice process but will be able to prosecute an accountable person straightaway.

That is in line with the enforcement principles that we set out in our consultation document in 2019 and in the Health and Safety Executive’s published enforcement principles—[Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby.

[Ian Byrne]

I have a simple question: what would have happened to who, if that was applied to Grenfell? That is the first part of the question. The second part is whether a two-year sentence is sufficient if we look at the context of Grenfell.

[Eddie Hughes]

There are two things I would say. First, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment regarding Grenfell, not least because, as somebody who listens to the BBC podcast every week to follow the proceedings, we are still a long way from the conclusion and completely understanding what went wrong and what the consequences of that were to be. It would be inappropriate for me to comment—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will let me answer his second point before he comes back with a third, that would be very helpful.

Regarding compliance with these notices, the total purpose of the Bill is to intervene at the earliest possible opportunity. I fully appreciate that the hon. Gentleman would say, because of the parallels he is drawing with Grenfell Tower, that two years does not seem an appropriate sentence, but, given that we are talking about intervening before things have gone wrong—somebody identifying a problem, seeing that an accountable person has not addressed it appropriately and therefore taking action at that point—I think two years is an appropriate sentence.

[The Chair]

Just for clarification, if people wish to intervene on the Minister, it is for the Minister and not the Chair to agree to that intervention. I take it from the Minister’s sedentary position that he was giving way to Ian Byrne.

[Ian Byrne]

Thank you, Chair, for your patience in bringing us through this process, because some of us are new to this.

[The Chair]

No problem at all.

[Eddie Hughes]

Me too.

[Ian Byrne]

I am not specifically asking about Grenfell per se, but an example like Grenfell that could happen again. That is what I am trying to draw out: is two years sufficient, and would the legislation target the people who would potentially be responsible for another Grenfell?

[Eddie Hughes]

The entire purpose of the clause, as I say, is to avoid our ever ending up in a position where we have another Grenfell. Therefore, the idea that the accountable person now completely understands their responsibility, and that that is set out in legislation, is increasing in and of itself the focus on safety within the sector. We are seeking to prevent any occurrences by focusing minds and ensuring that even in this new, stricter regime, if people are still prepared to be reckless and ignore the legislation, a custodial sentence can, and hopefully in certain circumstances will, follow. I completely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

That is in line with the enforcement principles that we set out in our 2019 consultation document, and in the Health and Safety Executive’s published enforcement principles. Those documents set out that minor infringements will normally attract informal action, which will be escalated as necessary. More serious breaches will probably attract more formal action, such as compliance notices. The most serious breaches envisaged by the clause will normally attract immediate prosecution. An offence can carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or 12 months’ imprisonment if tried in a magistrates court, and an unlimited fine and/or two years’ imprisonment if tried in a Crown court. Either court may also issue a level 1 fine of £200 for each day the default continues after conviction.

The measures will help to ensure compliance with our new regime, and they reflect our strong stance on breaches and enforcement.

[Mike Amesbury]

What assessment have the Minister and his Department made of the effectiveness of section 21 notices under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974?

[Eddie Hughes]

In all honesty, I am not sure of the answer to that question. However, I would be reassured by the fact that the Building Safety Regulator, in its shadow form—[Interruption.]

14:46

Committee suspended for a Division in the House.

14:46

On resuming—

[Eddie Hughes]

I offer the hon. Member for Weaver Vale the assurance that section 21 notices—and whatever else he thinks should be considered as part of this process—will be considered, because the Building Safety Regulator sits within the health executive, and all the knowledge on that subject sits in that department.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 99 to 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102

Notification by regulator before applying for special measures order

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 103 to 105 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

The vast majority of accountable persons will meet their new duties under the more stringent building safety regime, but a small number may still fail to comply. The clause establishes the procedural steps that the Building Safety Regulator must take to put a failing building into special measures.

The Building Safety Regulator must notify persons of its intention to apply to the first-tier tribunal for the appointment of a special measures manager who will carry out functions in place of the accountable person. The clause details the persons who should be notified and sets out the information that needs to be provided, which must include the rationale for the special measures proposal. The persons who must be notified include every resident of the building over 16 years old, the fire and rescue authority for the area, and every accountable person for the building, among a number of others.

The Building Safety Regulator must make it clear how a person can make comments and observations about the special measures proposal. That ensures that those who may be affected are consulted and can make representations. Requiring that the rationale for the special measures proposal is contained within the notification gives the residents and those other interested parties clarity on why the notification is being issued.

The Building Safety Regulator must comply with the procedural requirements of clause 102 before making an application for a special measures order. Once the decision is made to make an application to the tribunal, a final notice needs to be given to those persons, detailing the rationale for that decision. The proposed terms of the special measures order must be included in the final notification if the Building Safety Regulator decides to apply to put the building into special measures. Clause 102 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations about the form of notices and the way in which they need to be given. It establishes a key procedural aspect of special measures, and is necessary so that affected parties have the opportunity to make comment and provide representations about the management of their building

The clause builds on that, giving the first-tier tribunal the necessary powers to make a special measures order. Special measures is a last resort intervention. In the majority of circumstances the Building Safety Regulator will be able to take other enforcement measures to direct compliance with the new regime. However, where that fails, the Building Safety Regulator may need to step in and appoint a special measures manager to take over the fire and structural safety management of the building to ensure safety for the residents. The clause sets out the grounds that the tribunal must have agreed to be met when making an order: there must have been a serious failure, or a failure on two or more occasions by the accountable person to comply with a duty or duties under part 4 of the Bill. Those are the same grounds that the Building Safety Regulator must consider when making its application to the tribunal.

The order will set out the functions of the special measures manager, which will have been proposed by the Building Safety Regulator in its application for the order. This will effectively “switch off” the fire and structural safety obligations in part 4 of the Bill of the recalcitrant accountable person. The clause ensures that the tribunal can bestow receivership functions on the special measures manager, allowing them to collect the building safety charge directly from leaseholders, so that the manager can fund the functions that they have been tasked with undertaking.

A special measures order can make provisions covering any matter relating to the special measures manager’s exercise of their functions, and any incidental or ancillary matter. That will be vital to ensure that the special measures manager can carry out their role. The special measures order continues in force until it is discharged. I will speak about the discharging of an order in more detail later.

An example of when a special measures order might be necessary is if an accountable person repeatedly fails to meet the statutory obligations under part 4 of the Bill. Yet if, after using the compliance and enforcement tools at its disposal, the Building Safety Regulator is still of the opinion that the safety of residents is at risk, they apply to the first-tier tribunal for an order to appoint a special measures manager. The special measures order would detail the identity of the special measures manager, the scheme and terms of management, including the specific functions that the special measures manager would be undertaking to make sure that obligations under part 4 of the Bill are met. In making such an order, the first-tier tribunal specifies that the special measures manager has the functions of a receiver of the building safety charge to pay for their own renumeration and functions in relation to undertaking their safety obligations. This clause provides for a hugely important failsafe for when the safety of residents is at risk.

Clause 104 supplements clause 103 in that it sets out further detail about special measures orders. It ensures that a special measures manager takes over the functions of the accountable person for the building as provided for under part 4 of the Bill. However, there are some exceptions to this in order to allow the accountable person to retain the right of appeal, or to make an application, to the first-tier tribunal. Furthermore, once the building is put into special measures, any requirements of a previously issued compliance notice are cancelled. But enforcement action can be continued by the Building Safety Regulator. Once a special measures order is made, the role of the building safety manager ceases and any appointment ends. A special measures manager is solely responsible for managing the fire and structural safety of the building until the order is discharged by the tribunal. My apologies; I thought that I had got to the end of this group of clauses, but I certainly have not.

Clause 105 enables the special measures manager to take over relevant fire and structural safety contracts that may be in place for the building, effectively stepping into the shoes of the accountable person. That ensures that the special measures manager can carry out their functions as set out in the order. The circumstances that led to the appointment of a special measures manager are likely to be so dire that any competent manager would want to replace contractors. There may also be the outstanding provision of works and services, or a breach of contract by a supplier of shoddy workmanship. The clause gives the special measures manager the legal remit to pursue those types of actions under contract.

In pursuing such claims the special measures manager may be liable to pay damages incurred for the actions of the accountable person or building safety manager prior to their appointment. If that happens, those persons will be liable to reimburse the special measures manager. That type of provision is common in receivership, where one party has to step in to take over the management arrangements to help a failing company, and it is necessary here to ensure that the special measures manager can carry out their job effectively. As with other such clauses pertaining to the remit of the special measures manager, our aim is to give them the requisite and necessary ability to effectively carry out their role. In such cases as the example relating to shoddy workmanship and replacement contractors, the special measures manager needs the remit to be able to take a hands-on approach in those issues.

[Ian Byrne]

Where would the special measures managers come from?

[Eddie Hughes]

The functions that will be performed by the special measures manager will be the same or similar to those of an accountable person. As we have discussed on previous clauses, an accountable person could be a single person or an organisation, as in the case of a council or a housing association, so it would depend on the circumstances pertaining to the building in question. It might be that that person is simply an individual who has the competence and experience to discharge the role, or it might be that an organisation is brought in and the competences and experience are spread across several people.

[Rachel Hopkins]

Most of us have heard special measures mentioned in relation to schools and Ofsted, or where the Care Quality Commission has to intervene in health services. There is an element of public good, so when people can move around and come across from other parts of the system to become a special measures manager, so to speak, it is still after that same aim of public good. Given that many buildings that may be affected by this are in the private sector and by dint of that naturally competitive, does the Minister not see that there could be a potential conflict of interest sometimes, and how would he look to remedy that?

[Eddie Hughes]

I am not sure that the “special measures” description or title translates equivalently from the examples that the hon. Lady gave to this particular example. What we are talking about, and hopefully an incredibly rare occurrence, will be a significant failure on the part of the accountable person to discharge their duties, thereby putting the safety of residents at risk, so, regardless of who comes in to perform that duty, the main function and purpose of the clause in allowing this to happen is to ensure that the safety of residents is maintained, and that an appropriate person or entity with the appropriate skills, qualifications and experience takes over those duties to ensure a smooth transition.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I understand that the absolute objective is about safety, but what I was trying to get at is that with schools there is a very like-by-like aim of education. It may be that someone moves across, where functions have failed, to take on that role, but they could be, in the private sector, competing. They may not want to come across, so that we cannot find anyone to take it on because they are a rival building provider; or it may be that it is an assertive move to say, “We will rectify this but take it on.” How would the Minister keep the safety element for residents despite private businesses’ potentially using this as a mechanism to secure a greater place in the market?

15:14

[Eddie Hughes]

I refer again to the overarching responsibility of the Building Safety Regulator. That is the ultimate entity to which these people will be responsible. The Building Safety Regulator will have complete oversight, will understand and will be there to validate that the special measures manager is appropriate for the job.

With regard to the market for this, we now have so much more focus on building safety in this country and there has been an appropriate, commensurate growth in the services provided by some big providers, who understand the demand and need for this service provision. So I do not think we need to feel anything other than assured that there will be a smooth transition.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Miller. Just to expand on the response that my hon. Friend gave, does he agree that with the preceding clauses we have created a building safety sector and profession that will ultimately have their own professional regulatory obligations? If someone is going in as a professional within that sector, is it really worth their certification or their job to put profit before the duties they have to their profession? It is no different—to use my experience as a lawyer, for example—from a solicitor going in with their overarching professional regulatory obligations and then trying, for some reason of malfeasance, to undercut that. Does the Minister agree that we have to look at the overarching professional obligations that these people will have?

[Eddie Hughes]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. What we have seen through the development of this Bill is that specific people will now be accountable for very specific functions: the accountable person, the building safety manager and, in the case of the building safety manager, a specific person identified with that responsibility. Now that there is a clear line of sight to who is ultimately to be held accountable, I think we will see increased professionalisation and the sector responding to that, in terms of developing the professional capacity of the people involved.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for his description of the new regime under the clauses. I do not know whether he remembers Mr Benn—he probably does—who could be something different every day, or several different things in one day. This reminds me of that, with the principal accountable person, the accountable person, the responsible person, the building safety manager and the special measures manager. Certainly, in a lot of cases, they will be one and the same thing if they have the competency, knowledge, experience and so on to do that. What would be incredibly helpful going forward—for us all, collectively—would be some kind of diagram. I know the Minister referred to things becoming clearer now in regard to accountability. I am not convinced that they are. That is not meant as a criticism, but I would find a diagram incredibly helpful.

I worry also that we are having almost a first and second-class approach to building safety. Again, I go back to the point about 18 metres or seven storeys. This whole regime, this whole professionalisation, that hon. Members have referred to is for the higher-risk buildings. There are still risky buildings from 11 metres up to 18 metres —below the seven storeys—that do not have this regime.

[Eddie Hughes]

I think the hon. Gentleman makes a point that may have passed me by. Because I started off as a civil engineer and have worked in construction all my life, I was excited by the prospect of serving on this Bill Committee. I am immersed in the detail and so it all makes sense in my head. But the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point: it is just not enough that it makes sense to people who are technically engaged in it; it is meant to make sense to residents as well. When we talk about the engagement strategy and the approach that is taken to working with tenants and residents, we need to ensure that they have a clear understanding of who is responsible for what and to whom they need to apply, depending on what their grievance might be, so it is a very fair point to make.

With regard to the Mr Benn element, I fully appreciate that that is possible for some people. It is possible for an accountable person to discharge the duties of the building safety manager if they have appropriate competencies, so it could be one and the same person. Perhaps some sort of diagrammatic explanation of how these things work would be appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 102 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clauses 103 to 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 106

Application by special measures manager for order under section 24 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 107 and 108 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 106 amends the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to enable a special measures manager to make an application to the first-tier tribunal for the appointment of a manager under section 24 of the Act. That will ensure that the special measures provisions of the Bill operate effectively with the existing landlord and tenant legislation for occupied higher-risk buildings.

Section 24 of the Act enables tenants to apply for a manager to take over the management of a building where the landlord is failing to manage the building properly. When a building is in special measures, we want to give the special measures manager the same right to ensure that they can replace any incompetent or unco-operative manager. The clause sets out the procedural steps that the special measures manager must take, by amending section 24 of the Act, including notifying persons such as the landlords, the tenants and the accountable person.

The clause also specifies the circumstances in which an application by the special measures manager can be made: the current landlord or manager must be in breach of an obligation owed to the special measures manager, detailed in the special measures order; and it must be just and convenient to do so. The tribunal can also make the order where there is no breach but it is satisfied that such other circumstances exist that it is just and convenient for an order for a manager to be made.

Without the clause, the special measures manager may be compromised and unable to carry out the functions as per the special measures order. The special measures manager needs to be able to work constructively with those involved in the management of the building to ensure that the building safety risks are adequately mitigated, which the clause is an important aspect of.

Clause 107 gives the first-tier tribunal the necessary power to amend an existing order to appoint a manager for a building made under section 24 of the 1987 Act. It ensures that the special measures provision of the Bill operates effectively with the existing landlord and tenant legislation for occupied higher-risk buildings. Section 24 of the Act gives certain leaseholders a right to apply for the appointment of a manager in a number of circumstances, such as when the landlord has breached their obligation under the lease. If a building is put into special measures and there is an existing section 24 manager, the tribunal may need to amend the order to ensure that the manager’s functions do not overlap with those of the special measures manager.

The clause also limits the section 24 order when a special measures order is in force for the building. A section 24 order may not provide for those fire and structural safety functions detailed in the special measures order. For example, a circumstance may arise where an accountable person has repeatedly failed to fulfil their duties under part 4 of the Bill. The Building Safety Regulator would then apply to the first-tier tribunal to appoint a special measures manager for the building. Proper management of a building and its safety risks is pivotal to the safety of the residents who occupy it. This provision ensures clarity and certainty with regard to the management of the building, and avoids confusion with regard to the responsibilities and duties between the respective managers.

Clause 108 is non-controversial and wholly procedural, and complements the provision of clause 103. It gives the first-tier tribunal the necessary power to provide directions to the special measures manager, or any other such person, to carry out actions to ensure that the special measures order is complied with. The direction would be given as a result of an application for such by the Building Safety Regulator, an accountable person or the special measures manager.

An application can be made in respect of any function relating to the exercise of the special measures manager’s functions and any incidental or ancillary matter. An example of this might include directing the special measures manager to arrange building insurance upon application by the Building Safety Regulator after it discovers that the building is uninsured.

The provision is important to ensure that the first-tier tribunal has adequate jurisdiction in relation to the special measures regime. It is also important for the safety and proper management of a building. As with the previous example, the lack of insurance on a building would be a serious failing that would need remedying expediently. The tribunal should rightly be able to direct the special measures manager to rectify such an issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 106 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 107 and 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 109

Notification by regulator before applying to vary special measures order

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this will it be convenient to discuss clauses 110 and 111 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 109 establishes the procedural steps that the Building Safety Regulator must take if it wishes to vary a special measures order that is in force on a building. The clause should be read in conjunction with clause 110, which provides more detail on variation or discharge of a special measures order.

The Building Safety Regulator must notify persons of its intention to apply to the first-tier tribunal for the variation of a special measures order. Clause 109 details the persons who should be notified and sets out the information that needs to be provided, which must include the rationale for the proposed variation to the special measures order. The Building Safety Regulator must make it clear how a person can make comments and observations about the variation. This ensures that those who may be affected by the changes to the management arrangements are consulted and can make representations.

The Building Safety Regulator must comply with the procedural requirements of clause 109 before making an application for a variation to a special measures order under clause 110. Once the decision is made to make an application to the tribunal for the variation of the order, a final notice needs to be given to those persons consulted, detailing the rationale for the decision. The proposed terms of the revised special measures order must be included in the final notification by the Building Safety Regulator if it decides to apply for the variation. Finally, clause 109 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations about the form of notices and the way in which these need to be given.

Clause 110 gives the first-tier tribunal the necessary powers to vary a special measures order. While the building is in special measures, circumstances may change and it may become necessary to change the functions of the special measures manager. Those who are responsible for the building should be able to vary the special measures order to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. The clause enables that and gives the first-tier tribunal the necessary remit to do so. Furthermore, the special measures manager may have fulfilled the functions that it has been appointed to carry out, and the building needs to be handed back to the accountable person. In this case, it would be necessary to discharge the special measures order, and clause 110 gives the tribunal the necessary powers to do so.

On application by the accountable person, special measures manager or Building Safety Regulator for a variation or discharge of the special measures order, the tribunal will normally be required to consider whether, in so doing, there is a likelihood of recurrence of the circumstances that led to the special measures order in the first place, and whether it is just and convenient in the circumstances.

15:30

The clause limits how a variation to the identity of the special measures manager can be effected. Only the Building Safety Regulator can do that, unless there is an agreement between the Building Safety Regulator, the accountable persons and the special measures manager.

Clause 110 gives a power to the first-tier tribunal to give directions to any person in respect of any matter relating to the variation or discharge of the order and any incidental or ancillary matter, which is necessary to ensure that the fire and structural safety management operates effectively on the ground following any changes made.

Clause 111 supplements both clauses 103 and 110, in that it provides that the Building Safety Regulator must notify persons about special measures orders. It ensures that those who have an interest in the fire and structural safety management of a building are informed of the making of a special measures order or any variation or discharge of an order. That ensures they are aware of the actions being taken by the Building Safety Regulator and the first-tier tribunal’s consequent decision.

Residents would want to know if an order is made by the tribunal to appoint a special measures manager—for example, if the Building Safety Regulator deems that a building should be placed in special measures and successfully applies to the first-tier tribunal for a special measures order appointing a special measures manager, the regulator must notify each accountable person in the building. As set out in subsection (3), it must also notify the building safety manager and a number of other people, including all tenants of the building aged 16 or over. The contents of such a notification would likely be a straightforward notice detailing that the court has made, varied or discharged a special measures order.

Moreover, clause 111(5) gives a power to the Secretary of State to amend by way of regulation the list of notifiable persons, which will mean that the right persons are notifiable in the future if changes are made to the new building safety regime. The clause is a key aspect of making the fire and safety management of a building more transparent and accessible.

[Shaun Bailey]

Speaking to what my hon. Friend has said, I appreciate that we are dealing with a very technical clause, but it is important that we have the opportunity to be as flexible as we need to be and enable variations to take place, because quite often in these circumstances orders can need to be varied. Although this is a very technical clause, it allows us to have the flexibility and fluidity we need in the special measures procedure. The one thing right hon. and hon. Members would not want to do with these technical provisions is to pin ourselves into any sort of corner, so we need the tribunal to have the ability to vary orders.

We also need to ensure that there is still an engagement piece as part of that variation, which is equally important. As we found earlier in our deliberations, it is a technical process and can seem quite disconnected, so it is important that there is a flow of information to key and vital stakeholders.

I welcome the provisions. It is absolutely important that we enable that fluidity, combined with communication, to complement the regulatory framework that the legislation will build.

[Eddie Hughes]

My hon. Friend has got to the heart of the technicality of the clauses, given that they need to be able to apply in multiple circumstances. If we were too prescriptive and there was no opportunity for flex in the system, it would be difficult for the clauses to apply to all the circumstances for which they may be necessary. On his second point about the flow of communication, it is of course expected that if a special measures order has been made on a building, a resident should be notified and made aware of the circumstances surrounding it. He is absolutely right on both points.

Question put and agreed to.

Question 109 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 110 and 111 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 112

Appeals against compliance notice etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 113 to 116 stand part.

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 112 sets out a right of appeal for accountable persons who have been served with a compliance notice. It makes clear that an appeal of a normal compliance notice will suspend its effect. An appeal of an urgent action notice will not suspend its effect, however. That appropriately reflects the gravity of issues giving rise to an urgent action notice, including imminent danger to people in or around a building.

The provision will enable the Building Safety Regulator and accountable persons to take the necessary steps to ensure that residents are kept safe at all times. Where individuals dispute the continued effect of an urgent action notice, they may apply to the first-tier tribunal for suspension, pending resolution of the appeal. The provision ultimately allows for a degree of flexibility where compliance notices are issued. That enables the Building Safety Regulator to be as proportionate as possible when taking enforcement action against non-compliant work.

Clause 113 creates routes of appeal for decisions concerning the registration and certification of higher-risk buildings. It also establishes a route of appeal where the regulator has given a direction to carry out an assessment of building safety risks. Those are significant decisions with wide impacts on costs and business operations. Where decisions are disputed, it is right and proportionate that there should be a statutory right of appeal.

That is why the clause sets out for part 4 of the Bill what can be appealed, who can lodge the appeal and on what grounds. The Building Safety Regulator may have declined to issue a building assessment certificate for a higher-risk building due to non-compliance with the duties specified in clause 75, for example. In this instance, if the accountable person considered the decision unreasonable, or erroneous on a point of fact, they could appeal to the tribunal. The clause reflects established procedures for access to civil justice.

Clause 114 provides future-proofing for the Government. It will allow the Secretary of State to create, through regulations, routes of appeal for decisions that the regulator makes for higher-risk buildings. The new building safety regime will require time to bed into the built environment. Ministers may want to alter or add requirements in regulations as the regime settles in over future years.

The clause provides a degree of flexibility so that where the Secretary of State creates new regulations, there is also a corresponding route of appeal for those directly affected. As such, the regulatory system can adapt to regulatory needs in the future. A decision by the regulator to treat an application for registration of a building as withdrawn will be in regulations under clause 73(5), and there may need to be a right of appeal against such a decision, for example. The clause relates to part 4 only, and also provides that regulations may prescribe who can make the appeal and on what grounds.

Clause 115 relates to appeals to the tribunal regarding decisions made by the regulator under part 4. It provides supplementary detail on what the tribunal can do on determining an appeal, and what evidence can be heard at an appeal. The clause also creates a provision so that the Secretary of State can, in regulations, stipulate what happens in the event of a specific appeal, including whether the appeal should suspend the effect of the regulator’s decision. For example, the regulator may decide to remove a higher-risk building from the register. On appeal, regulations may specify that the building remains on the register until the appeal decision is reached. Other decisions may not be suitable for a suspensive effect, and the clause allows the Secretary of State flexibility in that regard.

The first-tier tribunal has been given a significant role in underpinning not only the new building safety regime but the existing regime under the Building Act 1984, as the new chamber for nearly all building-related disputes in England. However, as the tribunals do not currently hold powers to enforce their decisions, apart from ordering the payment of sums, this provision enables the enforcement of tribunal decisions with the permission of and through the county courts. It follows existing practice, as it is usual to insert a provision in legislation to enable the county court to enforce tribunal decisions. As such, the clause ensures that the tribunals are able to sufficiently deliver on building safety-related disputes, and thereby support the effective functioning of the building safety regime for both building control authorities and service users.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 112 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 113 to 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 117

Guidance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 117 sets out in one place the key powers of the Building Safety Regulator to issue guidance with statutory force on its functions under part 4, and the constraints on it doing so. If Members wish me to go into detail on any of the specific powers to issue guidance, I am happy to do so, but given that we have already discussed each of the clauses about which guidance may be issued, I do not propose to detain the Committee further.

I should point out that subsections (1), (2) and (5) enable the regulator to issue, withdraw or amend guidance, but only with the consent of the Secretary of State. Subsection (3) makes similar provision to that in the Building Act on the approved documents. That means that compliance with the guidance can be relied upon in court or tribunal proceedings as tending to establish compliance with the provision to which the guidance relates, while not following the guidance will tend to establish non-compliance with the relevant provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 118

Cooperation and coordination

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 118, page 118, line 39, at end insert—

“(5) In the event that one or more accountable person or responsible person considers that another accountable person or responsible person is in breach of any requirement or duty imposed by this section then that dispute shall be determined in accordance with such arrangements as the Secretary of State may direct by order.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), a ‘breach’ includes—

(a) any failure to act on the duties imposed by this section; and

(b) any dispute about the extent of steps taken, or said to be required, pursuant to the duties imposed by this section.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to arrange a resolution in a dispute between accountable or responsible persons.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Mike Amesbury]

This is a simple amendment, the reason for which has arisen in the oral and written evidence given by housing lawyer Justin Bates, which addresses what happens when the duty to co-operate between two accountable persons, where the accountable person is not the same as the responsible person, reaches an impasse. Our proposed solution is simply that the Secretary of State would arrange a resolution in a dispute between accountable and responsible persons—something that is currently missing from clause 118.

15:45

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this important matter. The amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to make arrangements by order to resolve disputes between accountable persons, or between accountable and responsible persons, in relation to the co-operation duties provided for in clause 118. Our assessment is that the amendment would not achieve the intended effect of formally resolving such disputes more than would be achieved through the provisions already in the Bill. The amendment would therefore not deliver improved building safety.

I must point out that the policy of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel sets out that an order made by the Secretary of State would no longer be the suitable way to deliver the outcome sought by the hon. Member’s amendment; rather, it should be done by regulations. I must also point out that the primary objective of the Bill is to ensure that building safety duties, including duties to co-operate, are delivered through the robust regulatory powers that we are creating. Where a lack of co-operation will have, or is likely to have, a negative impact on building safety, we are confident that there are already sufficient provisions in the Bill to deal with that.

The hon. Member’s amendment would require the Secretary of State to create a further mechanism to deal with disputes regarding failures to co-ordinate and co-operate. This would not only undermine the power of the regulatory functions upon which we will rely, but might have the unintended effect of adversely impacting on building safety, through delays caused by adding another layer to the regulatory and enforcement functions that we are already providing for. I must therefore tell the hon. Member that the Government cannot accept the amendment. While we consider the policy intent of his amendment to be sound, I would like to assure him that we believe it is addressed elsewhere.

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 119

Managers appointed under Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Eddie Hughes]

We recognise the need to ensure that the building safety regime is compatible with existing legislation and provides clarity as to the avenues of redress for any breaches of building safety obligations. Clause 119 makes amendments to section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to ensure that the new building safety obligations, as set out by the Bill, are kept separate from other general management functions for buildings.

The clause makes amendments that provide that a tribunal cannot appoint a manager under section 24 where the breach of obligations complained of by a resident is a breach of the accountable persons building safety obligations. This means that where a manager is appointed under section 24, the tribunal cannot confer upon that manager building safety functions, which are to be carried out by an accountable person.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under you, Ms Miller. I just want to ask the Minister on a point of clarification. What will you do to ensure that all accountable persons are bound by a special measures order where an accountable person changes after the order has been made, but while it remains in place?

[The Chair]

Order. Before I call the Minister, I remind everyone that we refer to other Members in the third person in general Committees of all types. It is not “you”, it is “him”.

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That may be something upon which we need to deliberate further, to ensure that the purpose that she described is addressed.

Redress for any failings on the part of the accountable person are to be dealt with by the Building Safety Regulator through the residents’ complaints mechanism. Having assessed the nature and seriousness of the complaints, the Building Safety Regulator can decide whether to make an application to the tribunal to appoint a special measures manager if there have been persistent or serious breaches of building safety obligations by the accountable person.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 119 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)

15:51

Adjourned till Thursday 21 October at half-past Eleven o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House

BSB35 Construction Industry Council (supplementary submission)

BSB36 BRE (supplementary submission)

BSB37 CICAIR Ltd

BSB38 Henry Grala, on behalf of Drayton Park Residential Group (further submission)

BSB39 Consensus Business Group and Estates & Management Limited (joint submission)

BSB40 UK Certification Authority for Reinforcing Steels (CARES)

BSB41 Get it Right Initiative (GIRI)

BSB42 London Borough of Camden

BSB43 Jennifer Melmore

BSB44 National Housing Federation (supplementary submission)

BSB45 Mayor of London

BSB46 Building Safety Alliance

BSB47 Andrew Brookes, Anthony Gold Solicitors LLP

BSB48 Joule Group

BSB49 FBU

Health and Care Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Mr Peter Bone, † Julie Elliott, Steve McCabe, Mrs Sheryll Murray

† Argar, Edward (Minister for Health)

† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)

† Davies, Gareth (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)

† Davies, Dr James (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)

† Double, Steve (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)

† Foy, Mary Kelly (City of Durham) (Lab)

† Gideon, Jo (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)

† Higginbotham, Antony (Burnley) (Con)

† Madders, Justin (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)

† Norris, Alex (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)

† Owen, Sarah (Luton North) (Lab)

† Robinson, Mary (Cheadle) (Con)

† Skidmore, Chris (Kingswood) (Con)

† Smyth, Karin (Bristol South) (Lab)

† Timpson, Edward (Eddisbury) (Con)

† Whitford, Dr Philippa (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)

Williams, Hywel (Arfon) (PC)

Huw Yardley, Sarah Ioannou, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 19 October 2021

(Afternoon)

[Julie Elliott in the Chair]

Health and Care Bill

Clause 86

Relevant bodies

14:04

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 69, in clause 87, page 80, line 7, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under this section which make provision affecting the functions of Scottish Ministers may not be made unless the Secretary of State has consulted the Scottish Ministers on that provision.”

This amendment would put a duty on UK Ministers to consult Scottish Ministers on regulations making provisions on conferring of functions on the Scottish Ministers or amending or removing functions from them in reserved areas before these regulation making powers are exercised.

Amendment 68, in clause 87, page 80, line 33, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations under this section to which subsection (5) applies may not be made without the consent of—

(a) the Scottish Ministers, if they contain provision for a body to exercise a function that is exercisable in relation to Scotland,

(b) the Welsh Ministers, if they contain provision for a body to exercise a function that is exercisable in relation to Wales, or

(c) the Northern Ireland Ministers, if they contain provision for a body to exercise a function that is exercisable in relation to Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the legislative consent of the devolved governments before powers in this clause are exercised.

Clause 87 stand part.

Amendment 70, in clause 88, page 81, line 17, at end insert—

‘(4A) Regulations under this section to which subsection (4) applies may not be made without the consent of the—

(a) Scottish Ministers, if they contain provision for a body to exercise a function that is exercisable in relation to Scotland,

(b) Welsh Ministers, if they contain provision for a body to exercise a function that is exercisable in relation to Wales, or

(c) Northern Ireland Ministers, if they contain provision for a body to exercise a function that is exercisable in relation to Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the legislative consent of the devolved governments before powers in this clause are exercised.

Clause 88 stand part.

Amendment 71, in clause 89, page 82, line 13, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (6A),”

This amendment, together with Amendment 72, would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the legislative consent of the devolved governments before powers in this clause are exercised.

Amendment 72, in clause 89, page 82, line 19, at end insert—

“(6A) Regulations under section 87 or 88 containing provision by virtue of section 131(1)(a) and repealing, revoking or amending provision made by or under—

(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament may only be made with the consent of the Scottish Ministers,

(b) a Measure or Act of Senedd Cymru may only be made with the consent of the Welsh Ministers, and

(c) Northern Ireland legislation may only be made with the consent of the Northern Ireland Ministers.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 71.

Clauses 89 to 92 stand part.

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. The existing arm’s length body landscape has remained largely unchanged since the Health and Social Care Act 2012 reforms. As the health service has evolved, this structure has led to a fragmentation of roles between different organisations, and sometimes competing priorities being disseminated to providers. We have seen ALBs, with all their differing functions and operations, responding as rapidly as possible during the pandemic. Building on this recent energy and innovation, and the value of working flexibly, this power provides a mechanism to support a more responsive and adaptive system than the current structure allows. Using these powers—to transfer functions to and from ALBs—the system will be able to respond to differing challenges more swiftly.

Clause 86 sets out the definition of “relevant bodies” that is used in part 3 of the Bill. This definition is relevant to clause 87, which provides the Secretary of State with a power to transfer functions between relevant bodies, and to clause 88, which provides a power to delegate functions of the Secretary of State to relevant bodies. The bodies covered by this definition are all public, sponsored by the Department and operating in the health sector. In many instances they have complementary functions where there could be material benefit to elements of joint delivery.

This definition does not include a number of health and care-related bodies, including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Care Quality Commission, which we have determined should not be covered by the powers in part 3 of the Bill due to the nature of their advisory, regulatory and/or public health functions. The clause therefore establishes the non-departmental public bodies in scope of the power to transfer functions set out in clauses 87 to 92.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire for tabling amendment 69, which seeks to ensure that Scottish Ministers are consulted before a transfer of functions in reserved areas is carried out. Clause 92 sets out the Secretary of State’s duty to consult any body to which the proposed change relates, as well as the devolved Administrations if the draft regulations apply in their jurisdictions and relate to matters that are within the legislative competence of their legislatures, or in respect of which their Ministers exercise functions.

If functions exercisable by Scottish Ministers are impacted, Scottish Ministers would, in our view, already be consulted under the current wording. We do not consider it appropriate, therefore, to consult a devolved Administration on reserved issues where it can be shown that they do not impact on it in any way. We have committed to setting out further detail in the memorandum of understanding, both in terms of early engagement and the formal consultation process, when it is appropriate.

Amendment 68 seeks to introduce a requirement for devolved Administration ministerial consent if a proposed transfer of a function includes a function exercisable in relation to a devolved Administration and involves a body with a requirement for representation of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland on its board. Clause 87 confers a power on the Secretary of State, through secondary legislation, to transfer functions between the relevant bodies listed in clause 86.

That is not a power to take away services that are currently provided by the relevant arm’s length bodies that are in scope; the power allows only for moving the existing functions around within the current landscape in order to provide greater flexibility. If it is used, it will be to make necessary and helpful changes to the ALB landscape, such as enabling professionals with complementary expertise to work more closely together, as they have in many areas in response to the ongoing pandemic.

Many functions relate to England only, and when bodies do operate in devolved areas it is often through mutual agreement. We fear that it would be disproportionate to require consent each time the power is used. We consider this to be primarily about improving administrative effectiveness.

We recognise that there are arrangements to ensure that devolved Administrations’ interests are recognised and represented at board level. Clause 87 makes explicit provision for the continuation of any existing board representation for devolved Administrations on the body to which relevant functions are transferred. We believe that that provision, alongside the current commitment to consult that is set out in the Bill, and underpinned by a detailed memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, provides the opportunity to engage in a thorough and meaningful way throughout the entire process. However, as I alluded in my response to the hon. Lady’s previous amendments, I will continue to engage with Ministers in each of the devolved Administrations to further explore whether—to build on what I have already said—there is anything more we can do to provide reassurance ahead of Report.

Clause 87 confers on the Secretary of State the power to transfer functions between the relevant bodies listed in clause 86 using secondary legislation. Clause 87 sets out the conditions that would need to be met for the Secretary of State to use that power—namely, to improve the exercise of those functions with regard to efficiency, effectiveness, economy and securing appropriate accountability to Ministers, with the aim of improving patient outcomes.

The Secretary of State can, through regulations, modify the functions and constitutional or funding arrangements of the affected bodies, and, with the exception of NHS England, abolish a body if it has become redundant as a consequence of the transfer of functions. That will be done by way of a statutory instrument laid before the House under the affirmative procedure. The Secretary of State must also make provision for maintaining representation of the interests of the devolved nations where there is the pre-existing requirement in the constitution of the body from which the function is transferred. That provision, together with clause 88, ensures a more agile and flexible framework for key health bodies that can adapt over time.

Our arm’s length bodies want to work together more closely, and the covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated the value of working flexibly. Building on that recent energy and innovation, the clause provides a mechanism to support a more responsive and adaptive system than the current structure allows. Amendment 70 would introduce a requirement for devolved Administration ministerial consent if a proposal to transfer a function involves the transfer of a function exercisable in a devolved Administration and a transferring body with devolved representation on its board.

Clause 88 confers a power on the Secretary of State, through secondary legislation, to delegate functions that may be delegated to special health authorities to any of the relevant non-departmental public bodies listed in clause 86 instead. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power only to delegate the Secretary of State’s functions. It does not create any power for him or her to do anything in respect of the functions that devolved Administration Ministers direct those special health authorities to perform in the devolved nations. As with clause 87, clause 88 makes explicit provision for the continuation of any existing board representation for DAs on the body to which its functions are transferred.

I set out in our debate on amendment 68 the Government’s reasons for opposing the imposition of a consent requirement on the use of the power in clause 87. We oppose a consent requirement in clause 88 for the same reasons. A further reason for opposing a requirement for the consent of the devolved Administrations to the power in clause 88 is that the clause simply allows the delegation of functions of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State already has the power, in effect, to move any of his or her functions between different special health authorities. That does not require the consent of the DAs. Clause 88 merely extends that provision, so that the Secretary of State may delegate their functions to one of the NDPBs. For that reason, I encourage the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire not to press her amendments, but I will wait to hear what she says when she speaks to them shortly.

As we have already discussed, clause 88 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations providing for a relevant body to exercise some of their functions. As with clause 87, that would be done by way of a statutory instrument laid under the affirmative procedure. Since special health authorities exercise functions of, and are subject to, direction by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State already has the power to provide for a function currently exercised by one special health authority to be exercised instead by another. The special health authorities that currently exercise functions on behalf of the Secretary of State are the NHS Business Services Authority, NHS Blood and Transplant, the NHS Litigation Authority, now known as NHS Resolution, the NHS Counter Fraud Authority and the NHS Trust Development Authority, which is merging with NHS England as part of this Bill.

As outlined in clause 87, this clause sets out that, by virtue of clause 131, the Secretary of State can use that power to make consequential, transitional or saving provision to modify the functions, constitution or funding of either affected body. The Secretary of State must also make provision for maintaining representation of the interests of the devolved Administrations where there is the pre-existing requirement in the constitution of the body from which the function is transferred. This clause, together with clause 87, provides vitally needed flexibility for the health system.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire for tabling amendments 71 and 72 and thereby bringing these issues before the Committee for debate. These amendments seek to ensure that devolved Administrations have the power of veto over any consequential changes that may be needed to devolved legislation. I note that in her evidence to the Committee Baroness Morgan, the Welsh Minister for Health and Social Services, also expressed concern about this power, as well as the general power to make consequential amendments in clause 130, which she linked it to.

During my discussions with Lady Morgan about the Bill, I have set out why I believe these powers are necessary and appropriate. I hope I have been able to provide some reassurance to this Committee; it is my intention to provide further reassurances on this matter throughout the Bill’s passage, and I continue to talk to the relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations.

The power to make consequential amendments to devolved legislation provided for by clause 89(6) is entirely limited to matters that are genuinely consequential upon regulations and will be largely technical in nature, such as name changes post transfer. The substantive power is to make the transfer of functions, and the consequential amendments flow directly from that. For the statute to work, those consequential changes should not be subject to consent requirements in their own right.

There are precedents for this type of power to make consequential amendments to devolved legislation in many other Acts, and indeed reciprocal powers for devolved Administrations to make consequential amendments to UK Acts of Parliament. It is worth noting, in the context of the ALBs that we are concerned with in these clauses, that Welsh legislation in 2013 made consequential amendments to the Human Tissue Act 2004 of this place. We fear that seeking to introduce new consent requirements on consequential amendments to devolved legislation would be unnecessary and could risk unbalancing current delicate constitutional relationships.

Clause 89 details the scope of those powers referenced in clauses 87 and 88, namely the powers for the Secretary of State to transfer functions to and from relevant bodies and to delegate the Secretary of State’s functions to them. Clause 89 sets out the detail of what may be done when using these powers, which gives useful clarity as to the powers’ scope. Subsections (1) to (3) set out what may be included in regulations when modifying the functions of a body, the constitutional arrangements or the funding arrangements.

The clause also sets out certain types of powers that may be repealed and re-enacted, but not created, at subsection (4). For example, the power cannot be used to create a new criminal offence, but can be used to repeal or re-enact an existing one so that it moves with a relevant function if appropriate.

As the functions of the relevant bodies are set out in primary legislation, it will be necessary to amend, repeal or revoke such primary legislation when providing for a transfer of functions. The power to do this is provided at subsection (5). Future legislation that relates or refers to the relevant bodies in question may also need to be amended.

It is also necessary for there to be powers to amend devolved legislation—I suspect this is where the hon. Lady and I may have a slight divergence of interpretation or of view, but we will see. There are references to the relevant bodies in devolved legislation, which may need to be amended in order to refer to a new body to which a function is transferred to ensure the effective operation in law of that transfer.

Regulations made under these powers will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That ensures that Parliament can scrutinise the use of the power, including any necessary amendments made to primary legislation, following consultation with the relevant parties, as set out in clause 92. It is an important provision that will allow transfers and delegations of functions to be made effectively.

14:14

When the powers provided for in clauses 87 and 88 to transfer and delegate functions are used, it is likely that assets, rights and liabilities previously held by the original body will need to be transferred to the receiving body. Clause 90 sets out that the Secretary of State may make schemes for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities, and the terms under which the transfers may be carried out. Such a power is a standard provision in legislation that provides for public sector reorganisations. The transfer schemes made be made on the transfer of functions between relevant NDPBs, or the delegation of functions of the Secretary of State to an NDPB. Schemes may be made for the transfer of property, rights of liabilities from the relevant NDPB, a special health authority or the Secretary of State, to any of the appropriate persons listed in subsection (10).

Clause 90 sets out examples of assets, rights and liabilities, as well as the types of provision the transfer scheme may make. For example, a transfer scheme may create rights or impose liabilities in relation to property or rights transferred. It may make provision for shared ownership or use of property, or provide for modifications by agreement. The transfer schemes can be used to move the rights and liabilities relating to a contract of employment; this ensures that employees can be moved without losing any continuity of employment, should staff transfers be appropriate. It is an important provision that ensures that transfers and delegation of functions may take place effectively and without undue disruption.

When exercising the power to transfer functions in clauses 87 and 88, it will be necessary to ensure that no taxes or changes in tax position arise for any arm’s length body affected, or any other appropriate persons to whom transfers are made. Clause 91 therefore sets out that the Treasury may make provision to vary a relevant tax in the way it has effect in relation to assets and liabilities that are transferred. That might include a tax exemption or a modification of a tax provision, and will be specified in the scheme. In this clause, “relevant tax” means income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty or stamp duty reserve tax.

Clause 92 places a requirement on the Secretary of State to carry out a consultation when proposing to use the power to transfer or delegate functions in clauses 87 and 88. The Secretary of State must, at a minimum, consult the ALBs to which the transfer relates. In addition, the relevant devolved authorities should be consulted if regulations would apply in a devolved nation and either would be within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature if contained in an Act of the devolved legislature, or relate to functions exercised by the devolved authority.

The stakeholders whom it may be appropriate to consult will vary, depending on the nature of the transfer of functions contemplated. The Bill therefore provides that such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate should also be consulted, in line with the Department’s and the Government’s commitment to engaging with stakeholders. The ALB landscape is clearly complex, so we must ensure that there is a transparent process throughout, including formal consultation. In that way, any relevant ALBs and devolved Administrations, the wider health and care system, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise any plans for its use.

For those reasons, I am tempted to encourage the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire not to press her amendment to a vote. I commend clauses 86 to 92 to the Committee.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

A lot of this covers the issues that we discussed in relation to data, consultation and consent. I respect that these are UK-wide bodies, whereas data is within the devolved systems, so that was an even bigger issue, but there must be recognition that although health is devolved, the regulation, licensing and registration of staff for bodies of this sort affect the devolved health services. There should at the very least be proper, genuine consultation, rather than changes simply being made.

As we discussed this morning, we saw how NHS Digital—in essence, an England-only service within NHS England—is now being turned into the Health and Social Care Information Centre, which is UK-wide. We already have the information and statistics division in Scotland, so changing the ability of the Secretary of State to change arm’s length bodies may indeed affect what happens in the devolved health systems. Reference is made to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority simply to respect that those health services are under the control of the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments and the Northern Ireland Executive, but decisions made here will have an impact on them.

I welcome the Minister saying that NICE would not be forced on Scotland—we have the Scottish Medicines Consortium, and the Care Inspectorate rather than the Care Quality Commission. However, that is people’s fear because it is not explicit here—either through consultation or consent—that bodies that have been set up for almost two decades, that are integrated with our health system and functioning well, could suddenly be rolled over. It is important that the Minister points out that clause 89(6) is merely consequential. It increases anxiety that the Minister here can, simply through regulations, revoke, repeal and amend Acts of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments without consent or even consultation.

I do not see an issue with a name change, but there is an issue with a Bill of this size and complexity being published and Ministers in the devolved Administrations seeing it only the day before. That does not show respect between the Governments. That is something that I hope, as the provision is taken into regulations, will change. I do not plan to push the amendment to a vote because the Minister said that he is consulting the Scottish and Welsh Cabinet Secretaries, but it should not have come to this. Respect for devolution should have been implicit in the Bill from the start.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to resume with you in the Chair, Ms Elliott, and to move on to part 3. Of the various parts, it has possibly had the least impact on my mailbag, but it is important. I am a little troubled by some of the provisions and want to probe them a bit.

The Minister gave a good and characteristically cogent explanation of what is in the Bill, but not of why it is there. That explanation was much shorter, so I want to come back to that because I do not think it is clear what problem the Government are seeking to solve. Has a significant risk to the health and wellbeing of the nation been caused by the Secretary of Secretary’s inability to remove functions from one organisation to another more quickly? I do not think that is the case. The Minister made the point about a rather fractured service and the need to be able to act more swiftly. I will revisit those points shortly.

Clause 86 specifies the organisations that the Secretary of State can delegate or transfer functions to: Health Education England, the Health and Social Care Information Centre, the Health Research Authority, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the Human Tissue Authority and NHS England. I was surprised not to see the UK Health Security Agency in that list and I hope the Minister will come back to that.

Clause 87 allows the Secretary of State to move functions between the organisations, and clause 88 provides for the Secretary of State to permit them to exercise functions on the Secretary of State’s behalf. Are we really saying that there are not decent, appropriate and effective ways to do that already? For example, the UK Health Security Agency is a relatively new body and it will take time for it to settle in and find its level. Do we really believe that there are no mechanisms to ensure that it can exercise functions on the Department’s behalf, or that there might be a public health information function currently exercised by NHS England that the agency might be better able to deliver in the future, but cannot because it is not covered by this legislation? I find that hard to believe. Are we saying that there will be an alternative route for that? I cannot understand why there would be a different way of doing that.

If that is really necessary, why is the Government’s instinct to do it by regulation? If there are problems today that perhaps the past challenging 18 months have revealed, we have got primary legislation here, so we could make whatever changes the Secretary of State wishes to make to the organisations on the face of the Bill. Obviously, that would not help with new and emerging problems, but what are they? What examples have happened recently? It feels as though we have a solution in search of a problem to solve.

Clause 87(3) basically prevents the Secretary of State from abolishing NHS England. Well, we would hope so—that seems wise—but what of the other agencies? The Health and Social Care Information Centre was formed by the Health and Social Care Act 2012; the Health Research Authority and Health Education England were created by the Care Act 2014; the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was formed by its own Act in 1990; and the Human Tissue Authority was created by the Human Tissue Act 2004. Are we really saying that we need a more direct ministerial route to dissolve or amend these bodies?

We have recent precedent for this: over the course of the past couple of weeks, or certainly over the past few months, the Government have taken Public Health England apart, taking some functions for themselves and creating a new organisation with the remaining ones. They were perfectly able to do it in that case, which would seem to me to be a very drastic case. Now, we think that was a very bad thing to do—I will continue to make that argument—but what I cannot understand is why, if the Government were able to do that then, they would not pursue the same routes in the future.

I would not argue the case against clauses 88 to 91, which form the blueprint for these powers, but I would argue against the rationale for them existing at all. Amendments 68 to 72 again seek to protect the devolved settlement: as the Minister has said, clause 92 provides for devolved nations to be consulted on changes that are within their legislative competence, but I am concerned that that consultation might not go far enough. If we consider a policy area as a devolved matter, that surely requires consent. I have heard some response to that point from the Minister, but we may well hear a little bit more.

Clause 92 lists who the Secretary of State “must consult”. As well as devolved nations, it includes the organisation in question and then anyone else the Secretary of State wishes to consult. That list does not expressly include the public or experts in the relevant discipline, for example, and I do not think that is sufficient. In reality, the decision over Public Health England was a rash one, made in its early stages by individuals who are not really involved anymore. In all honesty, nobody would have made the decision that was made: it was a situation in which, despite our desperate attempts to give the Government room to do so, they never quite managed to climb down. However, talking to the public and to experts would have helped the Government make a much better decision in that case, and I am surprised not to see those groups included on the face of the Bill. I hope that we will get an assurance that at least in the Minister’s mind, “anyone else the Secretary of State wishes to consult” would involve some experts, if not the public. I very much hope it would.

To conclude, we have gone back and forth on this topic in recent days, and we cannot support the provisions in this part of the Bill. They are Executive overreach, and there are recent examples of why these powers are unnecessary, because the Government can already do these things. During the proceedings on the Bill, the Minister has frequently told us that our amendments are not necessary because they are already covered elsewhere. I am going to gently turn the tables and suggest that these powers exist elsewhere, and therefore these provisions are not necessary.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to colleagues for their comments and contributions. The short answer to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, is that comparing the UK Health Security Agency, for example, to what we are discussing here is in a sense comparing apples with pears. This is about non-departmental public bodies. UKHSA is an Executive agency, so it is already directly under the power of the Secretary of State, hence why the Secretary of State was able to make those changes. This is about the different categorisation of two subordinate bodies of the Department—NDPB versus Executive agency—which is why this section of the Bill deals with NDPBs, for which that power is currently not the same as it is for an Executive agency such as UKHSA. It is a technical point, but hopefully that gives the hon. Gentleman some explanation of the difference in approach.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

I am grateful for that clarification, but I believe—perhaps the Minister will comment—that that makes the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North about Executive overreach even more pertinent and well made than they were in the first place. The fact that these are public bodies that are subject to the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which is something the Minister might come on to later, means that their quasi-independence is more significant, not less, and that they are governed accordingly.

14:30

[Edward Argar]

I will turn to that issue, but before I do I will address the question of why I think this is a proportionate and necessary change in the powers. As we have seen during the pandemic, there can be rapid changes and moves in the functions of those NDPBs, and we therefore cannot have a process that preserves in aspic a particular set of functions in primary legislation. I believe this is a proportionate measure that allows for flexibility around those functions around NDPBs, although in my view it does not encroach on the way they operate, hence the non-departmental public body point that the hon. Lady made. It strikes an appropriate balance.

The other point the hon. Member for Nottingham North made, which shades into the points from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, is that where a policy area is devolved, it should be that devolution settlement that takes primacy. The challenge is that, in a number of areas here, we see almost a hybrid of reserve powers and devolved powers.

We will come on to this after we have debated the Health Service Safety Investigations Body part, but it is a good illustration, so I will use it as an example here: if we look at reciprocal healthcare arrangements, which we will come to, the implementation or impact on the ground is to a degree devolved; it is about the organisation of health services in a particular area. However, the power to make international agreements is reserved.

Therefore, in spaces such as this, we come across complex challenges where there is no clear delineation for how to respect the devolution settlement and not intervene in aspects that are clearly devolved, while also striking a balance such that the devolved Administrations do not have a power of veto over a reserved matter. Those are the complexities we are wrestling with in a number of areas here, and I think that goes to the heart of the issues that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire has been raising.

[Dr Whitford]

The Minister mentions the UK Health Security Agency, which was suddenly created in the middle of the pandemic—supposedly out of Public Health England, so I am not quite sure whether Public Health England still exists. There were comments made at the time by the then Secretary of State that this would now be a UK-wide body and would therefore override Public Health Scotland. Since the Minister raised this matter, I would be grateful if he could clarify, because that is exactly the nub of the issue, whether they are executive agencies or arm’s length bodies: it is suddenly enforcing a change in structure on the devolved Governments, when our Public Health Scotland is totally integrated with our health service.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady makes a couple of points there. First, on the transition with Public Health England, to avoid a cliff edge—in the context of some of my conversations with the hon. Member for Nottingham North about different aspects of policy, that is perhaps not the best word—in the transition between two organisations, we have had for some months parallel running of the two. I believe, relying on my memory, that Public Health England finally transfers all its functions and ceases at the end of this month, and then we will see that transition. We have both in being for the time being, to ensure smooth operation of the actual functions they perform.

My understanding of the hon. Lady’s specific point about the public health arrangements that work in Scotland and that are a matter for the Scottish Government is that those relationships and that way of working will be able to continue. However, we saw in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and the withdrawal agreement a way of working regarding the health security provisions that has a UK approach to working but fully involves each of the devolved Administrations, because we recognise that the threats are national—as in four nations—and we have seen that diseases and public health threats do not stop just before they get to Berwick, and vice versa. Therefore, we are keen to look at this in a four-nations way, and we have just been looking with the Scottish Government at the public health framework and how we work with it.

I am trying to reassure the hon. Lady that there is no intention to undo what works, but there is a recognition of the need for us to continue to work as four nations together on this. I hope she will be reassured that that helps to respect the devolution settlement; I suspect she may wish to probe me further in future debates, but that, of course, is what we are here for. I encourage hon. Members not to press their amendments to a Division.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Division 19

Ayes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Noes: 5

---

Labour: 4
Scottish National Party: 1

Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87

Power to transfer functions between bodies

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Division 20

Ayes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Noes: 5

---

Labour: 4
Scottish National Party: 1

Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88

Power to provide for exercise of functions of Secretary of State

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Division 21

Ayes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Noes: 5

---

Labour: 4
Scottish National Party: 1

Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

We now come to the Question that clause 89 stand part of the Bill, which has already been debated. With the leave of the Committee, I will put the question on clause 89 as a single question with clauses 90 to 92, which have also already been debated. The question is that clauses 89 to 92 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say Aye.

[Several hon. Members]

Aye.

[The Chair]

Of the contrary No.

[Several hon. Members]

No.

Clause 89

Scope of powers

Division 22

Ayes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Noes: 5

---

Labour: 4
Scottish National Party: 1

Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93

Establishment of the HSSIB

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 127, in schedule 13, page 204, line 7, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert

“Chief Executive of NHS England”.

This amendment would give the Chief Executive of NHS England the power to appoint members and the chair of HSSIB.

Amendment 128, in schedule 13, page 204, line 18, leave out

“with the consent of the Secretary of State”.

Amendment 129, in schedule 13, page 204, line 21, after “HSSIB” insert

“, one of whom is to be the Chief Finance Officer,”.

Amendment 130, in schedule 13, page 204, line 32, leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert

“A majority of non-executive members following a vote”.

This amendment would give a majority of non-executive members the power to remove a person from office following a vote.

Amendment 131, in schedule 13, page 204, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (4).

This amendment would remove sub-paragraph 4 from schedule 13 of the Bill, which confers powers on the Secretary of State to remove a person from office in HSSIB.

Amendment 132, in schedule 13, page 206, line 12, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert

“Chief Finance Officer of HSSIB”.

This amendment, together with amendments 133, 134, 135 and 136, would give the Chief Finance Officer of HSSIB power over remuneration for non-executive members of HSSIB.

Amendment 133, in schedule 13, page 206, line 14, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert

“Chief Finance Officer of HSSIB”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 132.

Amendment 134, in schedule 13, page 206, line 16, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert

“Chief Finance Officer of HSSIB”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 132.

Amendment 135, in schedule 13, page 206, line 19, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert

“Chief Finance Officer of HSSIB”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 132.

That schedule 13 be the Thirteenth schedule to the Bill.

[Edward Argar]

I will endeavour to make progress before the Division in the House. Clause 93 is the first clause in part 4, which establishes the health services safety investigations body. This new body will build on the work of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, which became operational in 2017 as part of NHS Improvement. Part 4 makes provision to establish an independent statutory body to investigate qualifying incidents that occur in England during the provision of healthcare services that have or may have patient safety implications.

Crucially, HSSIB’s investigations and reports are about learning from incidents across the healthcare landscape and will help to foster a strong learning culture. We want to ensure that we learn from what has gone wrong before, which ultimately will ensure that patients get the best care, which they rightly deserve. HSSIB’s investigations will not assess or determine blame, civil or criminal liability, or whether action needs to be taken in respect of an individual by a regulatory body. Instead, its investigations will identify risks to the safety of patients and address these by facilitating the improvement of systems and practices in the provision of healthcare services in England.

There have been calls for some time to put the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch on an independent statutory footing. We previously introduced proposals to do that in the Health Service Safety Investigations Bill, which was introduced in the other place in October 2019. Unfortunately, that Bill did not progress past Second Reading because Parliament was dissolved for the general election. However, the Government are committed to reducing patient harm by improving the quality of health investigations and developing a culture of real learning. We are using this Bill to deliver that world-leading innovation in patient safety. I will take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) for all the work she did on this when she was Minister of State for patient safety.

Clause 93 specifically establishes HSSIB as the body to take forward systemic patient safety investigations. It also gives effect to schedule 13, which sets out arrangements for HSSIB’s constitution and governance, and provides details of its membership and its financial and reporting obligations. I am proud that this will be one of the first independent healthcare bodies of its kind in the world carrying out systemic investigations. The independence of the new body’s investigations will give the public full confidence in its investigation processes and its ability to deliver impartial conclusions and recommendations. The aim will be to learn and not to blame.

On the practical side, schedule 13 also allows the making of transfer schemes to ensure a smooth transition when HSSIB is set up. The intention is that following the NHS England and NHS Improvement merger, which we have discussed earlier, the functions of the current Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch will sit with NHS England until such time as HSSIB is established as a separate statutory body, so the transfer scheme provisions in the schedule provide for a transition from NHS England to HSSIB.

The amendments that have been tabled focus largely on the membership and responsibilities of, and the appointments process relating to, HSSIB’s board. Amendment 127 would remove the responsibility of the Secretary of State to appoint the chair and non-executive members to the board, and would instead give that responsibility to the chief executive of NHS England.

HSSIB will be a non-departmental public body and will therefore meet the criteria to be added to the Public Appointments Order in Council, which lists those bodies whereby the non-executive member appointments are bound by the Cabinet Office’s governance code on public appointments, which are regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It is standard practice to have the Secretary of State appoint non-executive board members to a public body. Making that the responsibility of the chief executive of NHS England could bring into question HSSIB’s independence, especially when it is investigating issues that might involve or lead to recommendations for NHS England. That would risk reducing public trust in HSSIB, which I think we all agree will be paramount in gaining public support for the work it does, and it could undermine the acceptance of its recommendations.

14:46

In a similar area, amendment 128 would remove the need for the Secretary of State to consent to the appointment of the chief investigator of HSSIB. It is the Secretary of State who is responsible to Parliament for NDPBs. It is therefore standard practice for executive positions to be approved by the Secretary of State, to ensure that there is ministerial and democratic oversight. Having the appointment of the chief investigator approved by the Secretary of State gives Parliament the ability to hold the Secretary of State to account. Removing it could weaken parliamentary accountability.

However, an important balance has been achieved with the current drafting. We have not provided for the Secretary of State simply to appoint the chief investigator. The non-executive members will appoint the chief investigator with the consent of the Secretary of State. That approach will ensure that HSSIB’s board is content with the appointment and can use its expertise in such an appointment decision, while we still ensure that there is ministerial oversight and, ultimately, accountability to Parliament.

Amendments 130 and 131 seek to limit the involvement of the Secretary of State in the appointment of non-executive members. Amendment 130 would eliminate the Secretary of State’s ability to remove from office a non-executive member and would give that responsibility to the non-executive members, following a majority decision through a vote. Amendment 131 would eliminate the Secretary of State’s ability to suspend from office a non-executive member.

The Secretary of State is responsible and accountable to Parliament for public appointments. As part of these responsibilities, it is standard practice that the Secretary of State is able to remove or suspend non-executive members from office because of incapacity, misbehaviour, or if they are failing to carry out their duties, as set out in the Bill. It would therefore not be appropriate for non-executive members to have that power, especially as all the non-executive members will have been appointed by the Secretary of State.

14:46

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:03

On resuming—

[The Chair]

We are now going to go backwards, because it has come to our attention that some of the clauses were not actually voted on. We are going to vote on clauses 90, 91 and 92.

Clause 90

Transfer schemes in connection with regulations

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Division 23

Ayes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Noes: 6

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 1

Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91

Transfer schemes: taxation

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Division 24

Ayes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Noes: 6

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 1

Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92

Consultation on draft regulations

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Division 25

Ayes: 11

---

Conservative: 10
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93

Establishment of the HSSIB

Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

I remind hon. Members that with this we are considering amendments 127 to 135 and schedule 13. I call the Minister to carry on from where he left off.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to you, Ms Elliott, and I challenge colleagues to remember what I was saying just before the Division.

On amendment 130, having the non-executive members remove one of their own members—essentially, their colleague—could very likely create a conflict between board members, because I would not expect that to be an easy decision for any of them. Of course, we want an effective, cohesive and united board with the Secretary of State stepping in only when a real issue needs to be addressed.

We would not expect those powers to be used very often, and ideally they would never need to be used. However, it is important to have those safeguards, which would allow action to be taken quickly should there be concerns about a non-executive member of the board.

Finally, I will speak about amendments 129 and 132 to 135, which look to mandate the creation and role of a chief finance officer for HSSIB. If I have understood the wording of amendment 129 correctly, the intention is to ensure that the chief finance officer of HSSIB is one of the executive members. As HSSIB is an independent NDPB, the recruitment of the executive members will be led by the non-executive members. It will be for them to take decisions about the composition of the executive members of the board, taking into account the balance of skills and experience required to lead the organisation in its vital work.

If the non-executive members were of the view that a chief financial officer’s skills would help the board’s work and complement the knowledge, skills and experience held by the existing non-executive and executive members, this would be a board role. There is nothing in the Bill, as it is currently drafted, to prevent the non-executive members from doing that.

It will be important for HSSIB, as an independent body, to be fully on top of finance and accounting decisions, and that is already reflected in the Bill. The constitution, which is set out in part 1 of schedule 13, includes a number of requirements in relation to funding and finance to ensure that that is managed correctly by HSSIB. For example, paragraph 12(1) of schedule 13 expressly states that HSSIB must exercise its functions economically, as well as effectively and efficiently. Paragraph 16 relates to the use of income from charges, and paragraphs 18 and 19 relate to the accounts of HSSIB. It is for HSSIB to decide how best to ensure it fulfils these duties, but I hope it is reassuring that the constitution underlines the importance of running HSSIB economically and the requirements for annual accounts, as would be expected of a public body.

Amendments 132 to 135 look to remove from the Secretary of State the responsibility to set the remuneration for non-executive members of HSSIB, and to give that power to the chief finance officer instead. The amendments present some challenges, which I will outline here.

In respect of public appointments, the governance code for public appointments states that

“Ministers must be consulted before a competition opens to agree the job description for the role, the length of tenure and remuneration.”

A number of non-departmental public bodies follow this code, such as the Care Quality Commission, the Human Tissue Authority and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, to name a few. There is no reason why the arrangements for HSSIB should differ from those of other non-departmental public bodies.

We wish to ensure the independence of HSSIB’s board, and I know that hon. Members feel strongly about that, too. Giving a chief finance officer control over the remuneration of non-executive members means that the Secretary of State and, via the Secretary of State, Parliament would not have full oversight of how public money is spent. Although I am sure that the non-executive board members would act with the utmost integrity, we must ensure that the legislation supports them to do so as far as possible, and that we do not deviate from standard practice in public appointments. For those reasons, I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments, and I commend this clause and schedule to the Committee.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Elliot. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Department’s position on the clause and the accompanying schedule. The proposed amendments relate to the establishment of HSSIB. As he has said, it builds on the work carried out by the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, which was established without statutory basis in 2016 and became operational in April 2017.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee identified in April 2016—more than five and a half years ago—that this legislation was necessary, and I am pleased to see that it is finally being brought forward. The Health Service Safety Investigations Bill, which was introduced in the House of Lords in 2019, did not proceed because of the calling of a general election, on which the Opposition do not wish to linger.

As other members of the Committee may have done, I have raised with the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch both system-wide issues and individual matters on behalf of constituents. My experience has suggested that there are wider issues that need investigating, so we welcome this opportunity to discuss and set out in legislation the powers and remit of the body.

Unfortunately, some details are lacking from part 4 of the Bill, which we think represents a missed opportunity to set them out a bit more precisely. We should not miss the opportunity to ensure that this body can truly improve healthcare, as we will demonstrate with our amendments, notwithstanding what the Minster has said. We are trying to do our utmost to ensure that HSSIB has the independence, the resources and the influence it requires to operate at its maximum potential. Lessons must be learned from the experience of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, which has undoubtedly had some impact. However, in many ways, its work has not had the impact it might have had, because its reach has been limited for a variety of reasons that are entirely out of its control.

Keith Conradi, the chief investigator of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, touched on that during the second sitting of this Committee, when he commented on how the branch had been operating in shadow form, without any real powers. We have discussed the powers of HSSIB, especially in terms of access to information and compelling people to co-operate with investigations. However, it is what happens after the final report, and ensuring that those recommendations are acted on, that will have the largest impact on patient safety and driving through improvements.

A recent example of the work of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch is its investigation into wrong site surgery, through the wrong patients being identified in outpatient departments. The reference for the investigation was evidence from the NHS national reporting and learning system that the incorrect identification of patients is a contributing factor in patients receiving the wrong procedure. The safety recommendation to NHS England was to lead a review of risks relating to patient identification in out-patient settings, and to assess the feasibility to enhance or implement systematic controls such as technological options or the use of the NHS unique identification number. NHS England responded by stating that the work would require an understanding of the true scale and impact of the risks through observational study, which would be resource heavy. It said that, without evidence of the risk, that would did not justify the cost. Hence, the recommendation was considered but not acted on.

15:15

NHS England’s response highlights the cost of following the recommendations in the context of funding pressures and large waiting lists throughout the NHS. Many recommendations made by HSSIB may well not be acted on in the future for the same reason. We need to hear from the Minister how cost pressures can be alleviated, so that systemic failings can be acted on when they are identified and we will not see trusts being asked to deliver unrealistic transformations if the finance and personnel are not there to ensure that that happens. We do not want important recommendations in HSSIB reports gathering dust on shelves, marked as too expensive or difficult to implement.

A further concern, on the safety of maternity services in England, was raised by the Health and Social Care Committee on 6 July. The Committee recommended that

“HSIB investigations continue, but that HSIB reviews how it engages with trusts to ensure that the investigation process works in a timely and collaborative manner which optimally supports local learning and development. That review should include processes to ensure that healthcare professionals at all levels and across multidisciplinary team are able to engage with HSIB investigations… In addition, we recommend that HSIB shares the learning from its maternity reports in a more systematic and accessible manner. A top level summary of individual cases together with the key learnings derived from them should be shared rapidly across the NHS.”

I appreciate that there is a lack of clarity on what will happen with the maternity investigation programme, and no decision that I am aware of has yet been made on how the service will be delivered once HSSIB is set up, but these recommendations must still be acted on if HSSIB is to achieve its function. Engagement is essential, as is the way that learning is disseminated across trusts.

Across the Bill there is a focus on the role that the Secretary of State plays, but there is too little on how HSSIB will actually engage with trusts. We must remember that HSSIB’s creation is for the improvement of the national health service; it is not the Secretary of State’s personal investigation body. It is essential that systemic failings are investigated, and that learning takes place in a safe space. Indeed, that was the founding principle of Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch. I am pleased that those principles are to some extent maintained. In due course we will no doubt get on to whether that safe space is actually sacrosanct. There are also concerning aspects throughout part 4 of the Bill that suggest that HSSIB might not be quite as independent as we would want it to be.

Schedule 13 covers the provisions of HSSIB’s formation. It is worth taking a few moments to reflect on paragraph 1, which sets out very clearly that HSSIB is not to be regarded

“as the servant or agent of the Crown”.

That is a clear statement about the need for HSSIB to be an independent body, and we can all see why that is necessary. However, the Bill has repeated provisions in it that could cast doubt on, or impede, that independence.

Indeed, as soon as paragraph 1 is out of the way, we see the first issue where the stated aim of independence comes into conflict with reality. The provisions in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are strangely laid out. Paragraph 2 says there will be

“a Chief Investigator appointed in accordance with paragraph 3”.

I do not know what that statement adds to the Bill. However, paragraph 3 then says:

“The Chief Investigator is to be appointed by the non-executive members with the consent of the Secretary of State.”

Why does the Secretary of State have to give his consent? Does that not go against the notion of independence? When we add paragraph 2(1)(c), which states that not only the chair but all the non-executive members are appointed by the Secretary of State, it begins to look like HSSIB is a long way from the independent body we believe it should be.

The NHS has raised concerns regarding this provision, and it sought an amendment that would have introduced some pre-appointment scrutiny by the Health and Social Care Committee to ensure the independence of this body. That view was also held by the Joint Committee on the draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill, which recommended that both the chair and chief investigator be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Health and Social Care Committee. The Government’s agreed and stated that they would work with the Committee on the best way to achieve that. It is therefore a bit surprising that the necessary provisions are absent from the Bill and that the powers lie directly with the Secretary of State, which is why we tabled amendment 127. I am hoping to hear from the Minister that there will be an appointments process, because although it does not appear in the Bill, it is important.

In the appointment process for Keith Conradi as the chief investigator of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, an open competition approach was taken in the selection panel, which included personnel from the NHS, the Department of Health and Social Care, the ombudsman and the HSIB expert advisory group. The pre-appointment process included a hearing with PACAC after the Secretary of State made it known who the preferred candidate was. A pre-appointment hearing then took place, and the Committee endorsed Mr Conradi. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that that is the kind of process he envisages taking place for the chair, and whether that would also apply to the non-executive members who will be appointed by the Secretary of State. In that situation, there is at least some independent scrutiny. Although we can probably all think of examples of where even that process has looked little more than a rubber-stamping exercise, it is certainly an improvement on what lies on the face of the Bill.

By contrast, amendment 128 is much simpler. It simply removes the requirement for the chief investigator’s appointment to be approved by the Secretary of State. I have not yet heard anything from the Minister as to why such approval needs to be in place. He said it is standard practice, but this is not a standard body, in the sense that it has to be seen to be independent of the NHS and the Department. Our view is that the requirement is superfluous and actually does damage and erodes the concept of independence, which we want to see with this body.

From the provisions in paragraph 3 of schedule 13, it is also unclear on what basis the Secretary of State may withdraw consent for the appointment of the chief investigator. If those circumstances arose, how would the chief investigator be appointed? Will the Minister set out the circumstances in which he would envisage consent being withdrawn? In that situation, what procedure would be in place, or is it the case, as we assume, that the non-executive members would have to continue to put forward suggestions until those were agreed by the Secretary of State? In a sense, they would keep asking the same question or a different question until they got a positive response, which does not really bode well for the concept of independence.

I would also be interested to know why the Secretary of State must appoint at least four members of the body. I do not think there has been a set number for executive and non-executive members outlined in the Bill. In the absence of that, I question why a set figure has been placed on the number of members the Secretary of State should appoint. Of course, we say that the number should be zero, but I do not think we will get the Minister’s endorsement on that.

On paragraph 4, it is not entirely clear why the Bill seeks to restrict the number of executive members to five, and why the Secretary of State needs to give his consent if it exceeds that number. At best, I can hazard a guess that it might be to ensure that his appointments are in the majority, which again does not sound particularly independent to me. It may be something to do with keeping a lid on costs, as all these people will presumably be remunerated. However, it seems rather odd that we have a body that is supposed to be independent, when the Secretary of State is looking not only to determine who holds many of the key positions but to restrict the total number of people who can work for the organisation.

It does not end there. Concerns relating to the undue influence of the Secretary of State continue in the provisions on the tenure of the non-executive members in paragraph 5(3) to (7). Sub-paragraph (3) states:

“The Secretary of State may at any time remove a person from office as a non-executive member on any of the following grounds…incapacity…misbehaviour, or…failure to carry out the person’s duties as a non-executive member.”

The same provisions also allow the Secretary of State to suspend a person from office and enables them to be reinstated if the Secretary of State

“decides that there are no grounds to remove”

the said member, or decides not to remove them under the provision. As the Committee might have noted, there is much talk throughout about the Secretary of State’s decision, with no explanation as to what may constitute misbehaviour. Given the events of the past year, I am not sure that a Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is always best placed to judge what might constitute misbehaviour, but I do not think any of us want to linger on that, so I will move on to the wider point.

Why would we as parliamentarians engaged in an important piece of legislation setting up what is supposed to be an independent body want to give the Secretary of State such broad and opaque powers over members of that body when he ought to steer clear of it? We should not be in the business of handing him such powers without making any attempt to define what constitutes misbehaviour or what procedures would be adopted to form such a judgment. What is the evidential threshold? Is there a burden of proof? Is there an appeals process, or can the Secretary of State simply wake up one morning and say that he is removing someone from office for one of the three reasons set out in paragraph 5(3), without having to produce a single scrap of paper in support of such action?

I hope Members can see that placing the power to remove or reinstate solely with the Secretary of State could not only leave him open to accusations of seeking to manipulate the make-up of HSSIB, but could see non-executive members reluctant to conduct themselves with free will owing to concerns that the Secretary of State might remove them. As Keith Conradi told the Bill Committee,

“Ultimately, we end up making recommendations to the Department of Health and Social Care, and in the future I would like to ensure that we have…freedom to be able to make recommendations wherever we think that they most fit.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 60, Q78.]

The Minister will no doubt be taking my concerns very seriously, but I am pleased to report that I have a solution in the guise of our amendment, which gives the powers to non-executive members, who may exercise them if a majority of them do so after a casting vote. It is important that non-executive members can be removed if circumstances justify it, but we consider the best people to ascertain that are fellow non-executive members. That ensures that there is a clear signal that HSSIB will be required to manage its own affairs, thus ensuring its independence. The Minister referred to wanting the non-executive members to behave in a harmonious manner and not trying to remove each of them from office. I am sure that will not happen most of the time, but if we are talking about a body that is truly independent, it should be up to it to make the judgments, not the Secretary of State.

Likewise, amendment 131 would remove paragraph 5(4), which would give the Secretary of State the power to suspend someone on the grounds set out. It stands to reason that if one accepts that, in order to ensure independence, the Secretary of State should not have the power to remove someone from office, that principle should also apply to the power to suspend.

On payments to non-executive members, as set out in paragraph (8), the Secretary of State is named as the person who determines the remuneration for non-executive members and the compensation payable to those who cease to be non-executive members in exceptional circumstances, but those are not quantified in the Bill. We face a situation where the Secretary of State can remove a non-executive member and then decide to compensate them. It remains to be seen why a Secretary of State must decide on the remuneration and within what parameters remuneration will be considered appropriate.

The provision leads to concerns about transparency and fails to clarify whether the remuneration for each member will be the same. If the Secretary of State chooses at least four of the non-executive members and decides whether members can be suspended or removed and how much remuneration they will receive, that calls into question how it can be argued that the Secretary of State has anything other than undue influence over a body that by its very nature should be an independent non-departmental public body. I do not see why the Secretary of State would want such powers, particularly when he already has enough on his plate: covid, record waiting lists, and the integration plans that have not been covered by the Bill but that we expect more on shortly.

However, concern for the Minister’s workload is of course secondary. Independence is undermined by having these powers in the hands of the Secretary of State. I gently suggest to the Minister that the solution again manifests itself in our amendments 129, 132, 133, 134 and 135, which provide for the chief finance officer to undertake the responsibility set out in paragraph 8 as part of their statutory role.

On matters of pay to members of staff, the ability to appoint and set remuneration sits with HSSIB, aside from pensions, allowances or gratuities, where approval of the Secretary of State is required. Will there be input from trade unions or the Health and Social Care Committee, or will such agreements will be private matters between HSSIB and the Secretary of State? Again, there is the possibility of a conflict of interest because of the undue influence the Secretary of State may hold over the body.

Paragraph 10, on procedure, states:

“HSSIB may regulate its own procedure.”

I agree that, in principle, procedural matters should sit with this body, but it seems odd that Parliament should legislate for that without having any view on how HSSIB should run itself, given that it has already been operating for a number of years. It is probably a moot point but if there were procedural changes in the future we would like a commitment that they would be made following consultation with Parliament, patient groups and, of course, workforce representatives.

Paragraph 14 places full funding decisions in the hands of the Secretary of State in the absence of a timescale for such funding agreements, with conditions that the Secretary of State can impose if they consider it appropriate. I share the NHS’s concerns that any funding should be set for a specified time period, which may be increased after consultation if, for example, costs are likely to increase, depending on the nature of the investigations or the committees and assistance required in cases where expert assistance is needed. I am aware of a suggestion that there might initially be a three-year deal, but any funding deal in line with the review period of HSSIB should ensure that HSSIB can function as intended.

I would also welcome clarity on what conditions the Secretary of State can impose on payments made to HSSIB, which again are set out in the Bill and could bring the independence of the body into question. On the face of it, this is a rather broad power. If we were to subscribe to the maxim “Follow the money”, it would not be too difficult to see how problems could arise under those circumstances.

Finally, paragraph 16 concerns HSSIB’s ability to raise income from non-NHS bodies. I presume—I am sure the Minister can confirm this—that that power is not something that can be visited on NHS bodies. We need to ensure that that power does not become more of a priority than it should be, in terms of funding restrictions, that the body’s primary aim is still followed, and that this power does not lead to conflicts of interest.

[Karin Smyth]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I would like to address some comments to schedule 13, following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. It is not an interest, but I am a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and much of the appointment issue is within our purview.

HSSIB is a really important new body and, as the Minister outlined, it must be of the highest integrity. It must absolutely be built on the highest standards of trust when it comes to the wider system and the general public. We will discuss how that will happen over the forthcoming clauses.

As the Committee knows, the issue of accountability is close to my heart. HSSIB being a public body, and I am afraid to say that the Government’s record in the last couple of years does not fill me and many others with great confidence in terms of how this body is being set up. Its leadership merits due consideration both by the Committee and when the Bill goes to the Lords and then returns to the Commons.

15:10

The Government’s recent record in pre-appointment scrutiny hearings is not good. We discussed that back in October with the then Commissioner for Public Appointments, and I will come back to some of the comments made then. The appointment of the chair of NHS Improvement in 2017 was unusual. The Health and Social Care Committee approved the appointment of Baroness Harding with some clear recommendations, one of which was that she should

“relinquish the Conservative whip in the House of Lords”.

It is unusual for a member of these bodies and maintain a party allegiance, let alone to vote for that party in this place. Further, given Baroness Harding’s

“own admission of a lack of professional experience in health and social care”

the Committee recommended that she should undertake to gain “the widest possible experience” of learning about the service before taking up the post. Finally, the Committee said that she needed to

“show her full commitment to the NHS while in this role in her own personal decision-making.”

That is fairly strong talk to the Government from our colleagues on that Select Committee. Did the Government act on this advice? Did Baroness Harding? The answer is a very loud, resounding—and terribly expensive, as it turned out—no. She did not and the Government did not. Not only that, but they went on to increase responsibilities throughout the pandemic by creating not another public body but Executive agencies—we have discussed the difference between public bodies and Executive agencies—thereby putting the appointment out of the purview of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

We talked about that in Committee last October. I asked Mr Riddell, the chair at the time, about the pre-appointment reports. It is not just the one from the Health and Social Care Committee; there is a bit of a pattern in the Government’s regard for the scrutiny work done by Members of Parliament and in Select Committees, and there are a number of examples, which I will not detain the Committee with now. If Members are interested, they can read the reports of Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee itself. A number of Committees and individuals have not been put through that due and proper process.

In fact, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee discussed how we can make sure that the Commissioner for Public Appointments looks at where the gaps are. With the Executive agency, we fell into the ridiculous conversation about whether Baroness Harding was a civil servant and subject to civil service code or subject to the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The answer was neither, really, because she was not technically in charge of the Executive agency as chair or a civil servant either. Especially when talking about the spending of £37 billion of taxpayers’ money, that is completely unacceptable. There is a gap between these effective agencies. Whether NHS England itself as a public body is the best arbiter or not is another cause for discussion. I would partly agree with testing the waters with some of these questions here today.

Clearly, something better needs to be done, and the behaviour of the Government in the last couple of years and under the previous Secretary of State does not fill us with confidence, though it may be that this Secretary of State is different. It is no way to make legislation. It is certainly no way to start off this new and important body, which we are all desperate to ensure works well. There will be a lot of trust and good work from people involved in safety in the NHS who are looking to it to achieve great things, so it must start off at the highest possible standard and with the most assurance that the process by which the person appointed is of a high standard.

Basically, we are left to trust the Government and the individual to abide by the codes, and we have to trust the Cabinet Office to make sure that code is implemented, but we have no evidence to suggest that that will be the case. I am not sure what the Government will do about that, apart from maybe try to be a bit better and abide by their own codes and standards, laid down two decades ago, about how people should behave. The Minister is an honourable man; we cannot always choose who we work with, but he needs to take those points particularly seriously. I am sure that he will be subject to more scrutiny in the Lords and elsewhere about standards and this appointment. I hope that he can give us some assurance that the Department of Health will be abiding by the principles of the Cabinet Office codes far more strongly in the future than it has in the past.

[Edward Argar]

We have had the opportunity in this clause and these amendments to range more broadly in setting out the landscape and issues relevant to our debates on the forthcoming clauses. A number of questions were raised in the context of this debate, and I will aim to answer as many as I can.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, talked about budgets and resourcing in his opening remarks. As he will be aware, schedule 13 provides for funding to be given as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. We are clear that we want HSSIB to be adequately resourced to exercise its functions, but it is right that when a public body is spending public money, there is democratic oversight, because that money comes from the public purse. We are determined to ensure that it has adequate resourcing, but I believe it is right that the Secretary of State plays a key role.

The hon. Gentleman also asked, I think—he can shake his head if I misunderstood what he said—about the impact of any recommendations or decisions on individual trusts or the NHS, and their ability to act on them without it disproportionately affecting their resourcing and their plans. We are confident that, as we have seen with previously identified failings—not necessarily through this process, but in the past—trusts are able to address those recommendations. However, in cases where there is a major incident leading to significant reform, as has happened—I suspect we all hope that it does not happen again—resources can be made available to address a particular systemic failing across a much broader landscape. I cannot pre-empt decisions made by the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer in those circumstances, but I hope that the principle of adequate resourcing is established, as we all want.

The shadow Minister also expressed concerns that, at their heart, were about the organisation either not being, or being perceived to not be, sufficiently independent of the Secretary of State, because of the nature of the governance arrangements put in place around it. I do not think that is the case. We are adopting a standard approach to managing public appointments to a body of this sort. I would be more concerned if the NHS were responsible for appointments or funding, because although I do not want to pre-judge its work, I expect that HSSIB will more frequently be looking into and reporting on NHS bodies.

On some of the specific points on the role of the Secretary of State and the appointment of non-executive members and the chair of the board, I can give reassurance that that will be managed in line with the Government’s code for public appointments, regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I hear what the hon. Member for Bristol South says; she will not be surprised that I will avoid being drawn on individuals, but she made her point and made it clearly.

Regarding the chief investigator particularly, it would be normal for boards to have more non-executive than executive members—we see that in both the private and public sectors—and that ensures that one-step removal from the executive operation the ability to challenge within that board. That is reasonable. The chief investigator is a key figure in this body, and I do not believe that the approval by the Secretary of State can call into question the independence of the HSSIB. The Secretary of State will not appoint the chief investigator—that is the responsibility of the non-executive board—but it is right that the Secretary of State approves that appointment, ensuring the route of accountability. I can go a little further and offer some reassurance to the shadow Minister, in that I envisage the chief investigator appearing before the Health and Social Care Committee—the most appropriate Select Committee—before the appointment is made.

15:45

To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol South, the first pre-appointment hearings in Select Committees took place in, I believe, 2008, under the Government headed by Gordon Brown, to give credit where it is due. That has since been strengthened, and we had the Grimstone review on appointments in 2015, so work on the subject has continued. With her Select Committee hat on, I suspect the hon. Lady would acknowledge that but say more needs to be done, which is a perfectly legitimate position to hold.

In terms of removal of board members, the shadow Minister mentioned the three grounds on which a Secretary of State can remove board members and highlighted misbehaviour, suggesting it is a wide term and could mean the Secretary of State can just say, “Well, that’s misbehaviour.” Although I am not a lawyer, my understanding is that misbehaviour is a defined or well-understood legal term that has case law and precedent sitting behind it that would be expected to inform a decision, so that decision could not itself be then subject to challenge for unreasonableness. I may be wrong, but I think the Wednesbury ruling defined unreasonableness. I hope the shadow Minister is reassured that while the term may look opaque or broad, it is understood within the legal profession in that context.

The shadow Minister also made a point about the chief financial officer and remuneration. The governance code for public appointments states:

“Ministers must be consulted before a competition opens to agree the job description for the role, the length of tenure and remuneration.”

It is standard practice for the remuneration policy for non-executive members of NDPBs to be decided by the Secretary of State, with advice going to Ministers on including information on the make-up and diversity of the board. I do not think there is anything in these provisions that goes beyond or moves away from the current practices for the appointment of members to similar NDPBs.

I do not believe there is anything here that would call into question the independence or integrity of those who were appointed. The key figure is the chief investigator, in terms of bringing public trust to bear on the findings of this organisation. That appointment would be carefully considered, made by the board and approved by the Secretary of State, with the key check in this place of the appointment going through a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing.

I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. I fear I have more work to do over the coming clauses to offer reassurance on a number of aspects of this, but I hope that addresses as many of his points as I could remember. If I have missed some, I suspect he will come back to me in future clauses, because these clauses are all interlinked.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 93 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

We now come to amendments 127 to 135, which have just been debated. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to move any of these amendments?

[Justin Madders]

The Committee will be relieved to know that I will not move every single one of them. What the Minister said about the pre-appointment process is helpful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said, it is not a perfect solution—

[The Chair]

Mr Madders, the opportunity to debate was before. You just need to indicate which amendments you wish to move.

[Justin Madders]

I wish to move amendments 130 and 131, and I will not press amendments 127 to 129 and amendments 132 to 135.

Amendment proposed: 130, page 204, line 32, leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert

“A majority of non-executive members following a vote”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment would give a majority of non-executive members the power to remove a person from office following a vote.

Division 26

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 131, in schedule 13, page 204, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (4).—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment would remove sub-paragraph 4 from schedule 13 of the Bill, which confers powers on the Secretary of State to remove a person from office in HSSIB.

Division 27

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Schedule 13 agreed to.

Clause 94

Investigation of incidents with safety implications

Question proposed: That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Edward Argar]

This clause sets out what HSSIB will be doing. Its remit will be to investigate qualifying incidents in England occurring in the NHS and also in the independent sector. Its aim is to improve learning from events of harm and reduce the risk of reoccurrence for future patients across the whole health system. The Bill defines qualifying incidents as incidents that occur in England during the provision of healthcare services and that have or may have implications for the safety of patients. Based on its findings, it will be for HSSIB to recommend improvements to systems and practices.

I want to come on to an important point about the role of investigations. The aim of the investigations will not be to apportion blame but to foster a strong learning culture and make sure that, ultimately, patients get the best care they rightly deserve, wherever they are patients. For that reason, we have specified that HSSIB’s investigative function is not for the purposes of assessing or determining blame, civil or criminal liability or action to be taken by a professional regulator in respect of an individual. That important point is reflected throughout the HSSIB provisions, including in respect of the requirements and admissibility of HSSIB reports. I will expand on those points when we reach those specific provisions. I hope that being clear on those points in legislation will foster a culture of openness and continuous improvement and learning, so that the whole of society benefits.

[Justin Madders]

As we have heard, the clause covers investigations of incidents with safety implications, confirming that qualifying incidents must take place in England during the provision of healthcare services, with the investigations identifying and addressing risks by

“facilitating the improvement of systems and practices”.

I do not know whether the Minister can neatly sum up what “facilitating” actually means in this context, but as we will cover in other clauses, there are certainly some concerns about how exactly improvements will be delivered—some have been touched on already.

Keith Conradi confirmed during his appearance before the Committee that currently, recommendations are monitored “informally” by NHS Improvement, and he suggested that a “pan-regulation-type body” might be needed to consider

“whether the outcome…mitigated the patient safety risk.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 61, Q79.]

That sounds like a suggestion that needs consideration, because it would ensure that recommendations made by HSSIB and the responses from NHS England, or whichever appropriate body is required to respond, are acted on and assessed.

If we are to improve patient safety, it seems unusual not to have any provision or mechanism to follow up on recommendations. Earlier, I referred to the recent investigation into the identification of outpatients, where, sadly, the recommendation was not acted on, largely because of the cost of complying with it. The Bill does nothing to clarify how funding will be made available to act on recommendations from HSSIB on improving patient safety. What mechanism will be in place for when recommendations are not followed, or for when they are followed but do not have the desired effect?

We must avoid the scenario in which HSSIB is essentially a toothless body whose well-intentioned recommendations are simply kicked into the long grass. In response to the Select Committee’s investigation into the safety of maternity services in England, the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch stated that

“for various reasons, some trusts have struggled to recognise the information we are presenting to them or to prioritise the actions necessary to address the risks. We understand the many pressures on trusts and that maternity services are a product of systems not all within the full control of individual organisations; sometimes solutions do not appear easily achievable.”

In a nutshell, the Bill fails to set out how that very real problem will be addressed under HSSIB, which demonstrates why we have been arguing for further consideration of how monitoring and assessment of recommendations is to be delivered.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his comments, at the heart of which was the question of who is responsible for implementing HSSIB’s recommendations, and how we can ensure that the wish for learning and improvement, which is the fundamental reason why we are doing this, has the desired effect.

We are clear that taking on the recommendations and implementing the recommended changes will be the responsibility of the organisation to which they are addressed. The Bill sets out what should happen when a report from HSSIB makes recommendations for future action. The addressees of the report must generally provide a response to the recommendations within the timeframe specified by HSSIB. That is not dissimilar to the way we are required to respond to reports by Select Committees, although occasionally we probably need to be a little bit more timely with one or two of those. The principle is the same: the recommendations are there and the body to which they apply will respond to them.

That response should set out the action that the addressee will take in relation to the recommendations. HSSIB may publish the responses to its recommendations. It is it right that HSSIB, as the independent body, may make that decision, because there may be reasons why it determines not to in a particular case. Without wishing to influence HSSIB, I hope that there will be transparency, where possible, in the recommendations and in the responses to them. I think that will foster learning across the system, rather than simply in the organisation within the scope of the recommendations.

I believe that is the appropriate approach and that it will see improvements, not least because I think those public bodies wish to improve. I hope that the culture created around HSSIB will continue to foster a willingness to learn and improve. I hope that offers some reassurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95

Deciding which incidents to investigate

17:07

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 101, in clause 95, page 86, line 37, at end insert—

“(10) Following any direction under subsection (2) the HSSIB may—

(a) request additional funding in order to carry out the investigation; and

(b) at the discretion of the chief investigator, decline to carry out the investigation.

(11) Following any direction under subsection (2) the Secretary of State—

(a) must have no further involvement with how the investigation is pursued;

(b) may not give a direction which directs the outcome of an investigation; and

(c) must have no involvement in the formulation of the investigation’s recommendations.”.

This amendment would ensure that HSSIB would maintain its independence following any direction from the Secretary of State to carry out an investigation and can request additional funding in order to carry out the investigation.

I hope my voice holds out, although I hope I will not be speaking for quite as long on this amendment. It addresses a familiar theme. It seeks to preserve the independence of HSSIB’s decision making, with particular reference to clause 95 (2), which gives the Secretary of State the power to direct HSSIB to carry out investigations.

The Joint Committee on the Draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill raised concerns about the role of the Secretary of State in making representations about investigating an incident. The Government agreed to remove the mention of the Secretary of State to make it clear that the role would not amount to a direction by a Minister. In that light, it is difficult to understand why the Government have now decided to install a power on the Secretary of State to direct investigations. It is questionable whether such a power is even needed, if HSSIB falls into line with the practice of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, which can accept referrals from anyone. If the Secretary of State has concerns relating to patients, he should surely be able to put those matters to HSSIB anyway, as anyone who has safety concerns can. HSSIB can then reach a decision based on the criteria that it has set out on whether to investigate, which we will return to later.

If HSSIB becomes the investigatory body for the Secretary of State, depending on how often the power is used, that could downgrade other safety concerns and also erode public, patient and staff confidence that HSSIB is a truly independent body. The Joint Committee on the Draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill commented:

“Our witnesses were united in stating that HSSIB will be neither trusted nor effective unless it is, and is seen to be, independent of both health service bodies…and the Department of Health and Social Care. Only this will provide confidence that HSSIB will neither cover up failures by clinicians and trusts nor conceal issues that might cause political embarrassment.”

By allowing the Secretary of State the power to direct the investigations, trust in HSSIB is brought into question. The amendment would make it clear that if the power is needed—the Minister can try to convince us that it is—HSSIB could request additional funding in order to carry out that investigation, and the chief investigator would have the power to decline to carry out the investigation. It would also ensure that if the investigation does proceed, the Secretary of State has no further role once it has started. If this power is needed, we think the amendment would create sufficient safeguards to ensure the independence of HSSIB, by ensuring that the chief investigator cannot have its own judgment and decisions superseded by the Secretary of State.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing this discussion before the Committee today. [Interruption.] I will talk for a little while to allow him enough time to have a glass of water to try to preserve his voice and mine for another few hours at least. As he set out, the amendment seeks to ensure that HSSIB would be able to make its own decision on whether to pursue an investigation requested by the Secretary of State and ask for funding; it would also ensure that if an investigation went ahead, the Secretary of State would have no influence on the detail of that investigation.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, as I said earlier, we remain fully committed to the independence of HSSIB, which is of course the reason why we want to establish it as a non-departmental public body with its own statutory powers. Under our approach, the Secretary of State would be able to direct HSSIB to carry out an investigation, but only if there has been an incident that has caused particular concern. The power to direct at subsection (2) is only in relation to carrying out an investigation; it is not about directing the outcome for an individual. That is an important distinction—we can ask them to do it, but it is not about directing the outcome. I believe that is right for the Secretary of State with responsibility for the health of the nation to have a power to direct the carrying-out of an investigation, so that he is able to respond to emergent or ongoing safety priorities or issues of concern, asking that they be considered.

The measure will ensure effective and proportionate accountability between the Department and its arm’s-length bodies, and between the Department and the House and the other place. However, while the Secretary of State may request an investigation, as I have said, he cannot direct the body on how to conduct any particular investigation and will have no role in it, as he does not have any such power. I hope that offers some reassurance to the shadow Minister. The measure therefore does not encroach on the independence of HSSIB’s findings, which are one of the key concerns that the amendments seek to draw out or shine a light on, so I hope I have provided some reassurance.

In addition, should HSSIB wish to discontinue an investigation, it may determine to do so, setting out the reason why it will not be investigating an incident. That would include any investigation, including one requested by the Secretary of State. HSSIB could discontinue an investigation, but would have to explain its thinking, which is not an unreasonable balance to seek to strike.

To turn to the question of funding, the amendment seeks to ensure that, in the case of a request by the Secretary of State to carry out an investigation, HSSIB may ask for additional funding. We have estimated, in our current analysis of workloads, HSSIB is likely to carry out up to 30 investigations a year, which allows sufficient flexibility to ensure that in the event that an investigation requested by the Secretary of State goes ahead, adequate resources remain.

On the process for the Secretary of State requesting an investigation, the limitations on the Secretary of State’s ability to be involved in the investigation, and the ability of HSSIB to determine whether it will pursue an investigation further, I hope that I have offered sufficient reassurance to the Committee. Therefore, I hope that the shadow Minister will consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Dr Whitford]

I want to raise with the Minister subsection (5), which calls on HSSIB to put out a statement on the issues that it is investigating with regards to an incident. However, that is right at the start of an investigation. Is he not concerned that, putting out a public statement of what the issue is at a point when no one has yet got to the bottom of that issue might be putting the cart before the horse? HSSIB might therefore twist the whole investigation into what its initial preconceptions are, instead of finding out the underlying cause.

[Edward Argar]

I take the hon. Lady’s point. That is not the intention, to prejudge or predetermine. It is what is sought with the investigation. I take the point about the language, which is important. The measure in essence requires HSSIB to notify the public that it is looking into a particular circumstance or complaint. I think “issues” still works, but I take her point that we cannot prejudge, and nor should HSSIB, where its investigation is going, which rabbit hole it will take it down, what it might find, but that is a point of language. I hope that I have reassured her, but I accept that we always need to be careful about the language.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the Minister’s investigation, but I am still not clear why an additional power needs to be set out in the Bill. My understanding is that anyone can make a referral anyway, so why this has to be set out in black and white is a mystery to me. Despite what the Minister has said, it is important to have the amendment in the Bill, because it will give patients and the public confidence that there will not be interference or challenges that undermine the notion of independence. We will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 28

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 122, in clause 95, page 86, line 37, at end insert—

‘(10) The Secretary of State must by regulations lay out a process to challenge a decision made by HSSIB not to investigate a qualifying incident.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to put in place a mechanism through which any decision by HSSIB not to investigate a qualifying incident could be challenged.

We have had some discussion about the matters that may be chosen by HSSIB to be investigated, but it is probably more pertinent for the purposes of considering this amendment that we discuss what happens when HSSIB decides not to investigate. Amendment 122 would require a mechanism to be put in place so that any decision by HSSIB not to investigate a qualifying incident could be challenged. If the independence of the body and faith in its purpose are to be protected, it is essential that there is a mechanism whereby HSSIB decision making can be challenged. That is especially true when we consider the role of families in the investigation process.

My experience with HSSIB came when a patient safety concern was raised by a constituent, and after that concern was not investigated it brought home to me the distress and feeling of being let down by a refusal to investigate. Without a mechanism to challenge such a refusal, faith in HSSIB could be damaged by effectively creating a dead end to further inquiries.

I should point out that in the particular circumstances that I have just referred to HSSIB agreed to a meeting and it set out in more detail its reasons for not investigating, but that might not be possible in all situations. That meeting aided my constituent’s understanding of why their request was refused, but it did not actually mean that they agreed with HSSIB’s decision. Consequently, our view is that there needs to be some sort of process—we do not intend to set out today what it should be—set out in regulations to ensure that those who make a referral have the opportunity to articulate their concerns if that referral should not go on to be investigated. In conclusion, if the purpose of HSSIB is to improve patient safety, we should ensure that collaborative approaches are enshrined in legislation, and we believe that a mechanism along the lines of what we have set out in the amendment would go some way towards achieving that.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting out the background to his amendment, with which he seeks to ensure that a process is set out in regulations to allow the challenging of a decision by HSSIB when it has decided not to investigate a qualifying incident. However, I have to say that I do not think that this measure would necessarily be proportionate. The Bill already sets out, in clause 95 (8) and (9), that where HSSIB makes a decision not to pursue an investigation, it may explain the reasons behind that decision and communicate those reasons to those people with an interest.

It may be that the Government or others want to understand more about how HSSIB reached a decision, but setting out within regulations a fixed process to challenge HSSIB’s decisions would again risk being disproportionate. If HSSIB discontinues an investigation that it has started, then it must publish a statement that reports that it has discontinued the investigation and give its reasons for doing so. I believe that gives a high level of transparency in that circumstance.

I do not believe that it would be proportionate to take the same approach when an investigation has not even been commenced. The key theme running through these discussions, which we have heard about in our consideration of previous clauses, is the independence of HSSIB, and its ability to determine these matters and make its decisions in an independent way. I fear that this amendment sits slightly uneasily with that principle.

As I said, we intend HSSIB to carry out an estimated 30 investigations a year, so there is not the intention, even at the outset, that HSSIB should investigate all qualifying incidents. It is for HSSIB to determine that, so I do not think it would be the best use of HSSIB and its expertise to go through a formal process to explain why it has determined not to investigate incidents. We want HSSIB’s resource to go into investigating the qualifying incidents that it has determined to investigate.

I suspect we will return to this theme again in the course of our discussions, but I believe it is important that, as the expert body, HSSIB is given the autonomy to make its own decisions about what to investigate. Any such decision would of course need to stand up to scrutiny, and of course, as part of our own arrangements, we will need to ensure consistency, while at the same time ensuring that HSSIB’s autonomy is respected as it should be. That is a difficult balance, but it is one we need to ensure we strike. I therefore encourage the shadow Minister to not press his amendment to a Division.

16:15

[Justin Madders]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Edward Argar]

During our debate on amendments 101 and 122, we discussed a number of the key themes that run through clause 95. This clause sets out that, as an independent body, HSSIB will be able to decide its own priorities and determine which qualifying incidents it investigates. We would expect this to be the result of referrals it receives, but also its own intelligence. The clause also gives the Secretary of State powers to direct HSSIB to carry out an investigation when, for example, there has been an incident that has caused a particular concern, and it allows the Secretary of State to request a report to be produced by a specified date.

I appreciate that, as we have heard today, some could argue that the clause could be perceived to encroach on the independence of HSSIB. I hope I set out in my earlier remarks why I do not take that view, and why I believe it is right that the Secretary of State, who has responsibility for the health of the nation, has such a power and is able to respond to emerging, ongoing safety priorities or issues of concern. I believe that this measure strikes the right balance, providing the Secretary of State with that flexibility while ensuring effective and proportionate accountability. HSSIB is not bound to follow the instruction, but it is bound to explain why it deems it unnecessary, or why it has determined it should not pursue a particular investigation request.

[Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)]

As a point of clarification, I notice that clause 95(2) gives the Secretary of State the power to direct both an individual investigation and

“qualifying incidents that have occurred and are of a particular description”,

but I wonder whether HSSIB, off its own bat and as part of its independent investigation, is able—as we were when I chaired the national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel—to look at a number of incidents in which there is a theme that it would want to investigate. For example, we looked at a number of cases of co-sleeping with babies, which gave us an opportunity to look at that issue in the round, rather than individual cases. Is that something that HSSIB will also be able to do?

[Edward Argar]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and I put on record my gratitude—our gratitude—to him for his work, which he alluded to. He is right: one of the key things we would hope HSSIB would seek to do, where it was supported by the evidence, is to join the dots where there is a systemic issue—not just in an individual trust, for example, but an underlying issue for the Department or the NHS as a whole—and be able to reflect that in its decisions on what to work on and how to broaden the scope if it deemed that to be necessary.

Clause 95 provides that whenever HSSIB decides to undertake an investigation, it is required to make a public announcement, setting out briefly what it will be investigating and what it expects to consider during the investigation. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire: that announcement should give the public an indication of the fact that something is being looked at, but it should not limit which leads—for want of a better way of putting it—HSSIB decides are worthy of investigation and of following. HSSIB will also be able to get in contact in advance with anyone who it thinks may be affected by the investigation. This may, for example, include patients, families or any individual who has referred the incidents to HSSIB, a trust or other healthcare provider.

Finally, there may be occasions when HSSIB decides not to investigate an issue or to discontinue with an investigation. Clause 95 covers those scenarios. If HSSIB decides to discontinue the investigation of an issue, we have set out that it should make a public statement explaining the reasons for doing so. If HSSIB decides not to investigate a qualifying incident, it will be able to give notice of the decision to those who it considers might be affected by it and to explain the reasons to those who have an interest in it.

I hope colleagues on the Committee will agree that the provisions are necessary for HSSIB to be in control of the qualifying incidents and to investigate and to ensure transparency about what investigations are being carried out or discontinued by the agency. We expect that the Secretary of State’s power of direction will be exercised extremely sparingly but it can ensure that crucial patient safety issues can always be focused on where appropriate. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Justin Madders]

These processes will be critical if HSSIB is to function properly. The Minister has had three or four attempts to explain why the Secretary the State needs the power to direct when he can make referrals anyway, but we are still to understand why that power needs to be there. If the Secretary of State asked HSSIB to undertake an investigation, it would jolly well get on and do it. That aside, we will not be voting against the clause.

Question put and agreed to.  

Clause 95 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 96

Criteria, Principles and Processes

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 123, in clause 96, page 87, line 22, after “State,” insert—

“(aa) trade unions,

(ab) patients,”

This returns to the issue of the criteria for investigations. If they were set out in the Bill, that would perhaps allow the power to direct to be mitigated in some way. We would then at least know whether the directions given by the Secretary of State were reasonable, judged against HSSIB’s own criteria. There is a void in the clause because it should set out unambiguously what criteria are applied when decisions are made. It is silent on that, and the response might be that that is deliberately so in order that HSSIB be truly independent. That might be a slightly stronger argument if the Secretary of State were not hand-picking most of the main positions in the body.

We have been asked to give HSSIB a blank cheque, but clause 96 says:

“The HSSIB must determine and publish—

(a) the criteria it will use in determining which incidents it investigates,

(b) the principles which are to govern investigations,

(c) the processes to be followed in carrying out investigations”.

We think it not inconsistent with the body’s independence for Parliament to have a role in setting out what those processes will be, particularly if they result from consultations with stakeholders, patient groups, trade unions and so on.

Although I appreciate that subsection (7) requires consultation with the Secretary of State and

“any other persons the HSSIB considers appropriate”

for there to be any revision to criteria, principles and processes, it does not set out a statutory requirement for wider involvement to take place. During consideration of the draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill, the Royal College of Nursing recommended that consultation on criteria take place with healthcare professionals, patients and families to ensure that any investigation remained patient focused. Given the importance of the criteria in HSSIB’s function and the reach it will actually have, establishing the body without any such framework does not allow it to be scrutinised in the way that we would like.

To return to the point made by the RCN on investigations being patient focused, subsection (1)(d) does allow some limited focus to ensure that patients’ families are involved in investigations

“so far as reasonable and practical”

and that anything published is easily accessible and understood. That is welcome, and it enshrines the recommendations made by individuals, Healthwatch and the Nursing and Midwifery Council to the Joint Committee on the Draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill. Matthew McClelland, the NMC’s director of fitness to practise, said it was critical to do that to

“put patient voices right at the centre of investigations”.

We wholeheartedly agree. That position is also supported by Healthwatch England, which commented that

“you can learn only if you really engage people properly in that process.”

However, we can see no set role for patient groups in establishing criteria, principles and processes. The Opposition think that side-lining such groups in the legislation sets the wrong precedent for their future involvement. Our amendment would change subsection (7) to create a safety net, ensuring that the patient voice and staff views are at the heart of any further consultations on changes considered by the branch.

[Edward Argar]

Clause 96 outlines that HSSIB must determine and publish certain criteria, principles and processes, including the criteria that it will use when deciding which qualifying incidents to investigate. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would require HSSIB specifically to consult trade unions and patients when considering or reviewing criteria, principles and processes. I am not convinced that that is the most appropriate approach.

The clause, which I suspect we will turn to immediately after the debate, includes a number of references to “patients and their families”. HSSIB will need to set out how it will involve them in investigations as far as is reasonably practicable. It will also need to ensure that such processes are easily accessible and understood by families and patients.

I am sure that families and patients will be very much part of HSSIB’s considerations, as they are for the current Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch. However, the decision about who is consulted is best left to HSSIB, which will be best placed to determine who is appropriate. Again, that goes to the point of independence and flexibility to follow the evidence and determine where it thinks is the most appropriate place to go.

Similarly, on trade unions, as I have said in the Committee, while on occasion I suspect I may not agree with them, I recognise the vital role that they play in our country’s democracy. Again, it is important that HSSIB can judge when or whether to consult with them, depending on the issue involved. An approach where some groups are specified in legislation as needing to be consulted but not others may give the impression that some organisations or groups carry greater weight. It is important that, as HSSIB looks at each qualifying incident, it can judge what is the most appropriate balance for consultation.

The amendment would also mean that specific groups would always need to be consulted when it may not be appropriate in each case, dependent on the circumstances under consideration. I therefore think it is right that it will be for HSSIB to make decisions as to who it considers appropriate to consult. I hope that, in the spirit of striking the right balance in preserving HSSIB’s independence, the hon. Gentleman might consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Justin Madders]

The Minister is right; it should be up to HSSIB to decide who it consults. That is why it is seems superfluous to have a requirement in the clause that it must consult the Secretary of State. However, I cannot imagine a circumstance in which HSSIB would not want to consult him or her. Indeed, I cannot imagine patient groups and trade unions not being part of the conversation in most circumstances. We think we will need to keep an eye on this as matters progress. However, we have made our point and will not press the amendment to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Edward Argar]

Clause 96 provides that HSSIB determines and publishes the criteria it will use when deciding which qualifying incidents to investigate, as well as the timescales by which investigations will be completed. The clause therefore ensures that HSSIB will be transparent in how it will work and will have the flexibility to determine the most appropriate investigation methods depending on the type of inquiry. The current body, the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, has a wealth of experience and has been conducting investigations since 2017, so it already has a solid base to build on to inform the criteria, principles and processes for its future investigations.

16:30

In designing the legislation, we have been mindful of the role of families. Family engagement is really important—indeed, vital—and it is right that the clause sets out that the relevant processes need to be easily accessible and understood by families. I hope that being explicit about the involvement of families demonstrates our commitment that HSSIB, in its new form, will continue to put patients and families at the heart of investigations, so far as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury has highlighted that focus on families and patients in debates on other aspects of the Bill.

In determining the criteria, HSSIB must consult the Secretary of State and any other person it considers appropriate. HSSIB must review the criteria, principles and processes within three years of first publishing them and then at least once every five years thereafter. It must consult the Secretary of State and other persons it considers appropriate as and when determining and revising such criteria, principles and processes. The overall aim of the clause is to encourage continuous improvement in how investigations are carried out, using any important learning to inform the new criteria, principles and processes that will be followed, and ensuring that HSSIB is at all times accessible to patients and their families. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Justin Madders]

As the Minister said, this is an important clause as it will ensure some transparency in HSSIB’s operation. Like him, Opposition Members welcome the emphasis on patients and their families and on making sure that the body’s processes are accessible and easily understood by them, because that is at the heart of making sure that HSSIB is a success. It will not be successful unless people can see and understand exactly how things have changed. As we know from many tragic cases in the NHS, one of the most important things that families want is to know that things have changed, so that whatever terrible incident happened to them and their loved ones does not happen to someone else in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97

Final reports

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 124, in clause 97, page 88, line 15, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

“(7) The final report must be sent to the Secretary of State.

(8) Within 12 months of each final report being sent to the Secretary of State under subsection (7), a report must be laid before Parliament setting out the steps the Secretary of State has taken as a result.”.

The amendment seeks to ensure that each investigation report produced by the HSSIB is sent to the Secretary of State, who must report to Parliament on what steps have been taken as a result.

The clause deals with the final reports of HSSIB, which essentially will be about the manner in which improvements to systems and practices can be facilitated by the body. While the provision requires a final report to be published, only in subsection (7) is there a requirement for the report to be sent to the Secretary of State, and only in those cases where a direction has been given by the Secretary of State to investigate. Given the role of HSSIB, and to ensure that its functions are met, the amendment would require all final reports to be sent to the Secretary of State, who must present them to Parliament within 12 months outlining what steps had been taken. That would offer a safeguard and ensure some oversight from Parliament in considering HSSIB’s effectiveness and the improvements being made on patient safety.

As the Joint Committee on the Draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill commented:

“There was widespread agreement among our witnesses that there would be more confidence in HSSIB’s independence were it to be accountable to Parliament rather than to the Secretary of State. When asked whether accountability to Parliament might not also be seen as political influence, Professor Toft responded that accountability through a cross-party committee was more likely to inspire confidence than to a single Minister, and that a committee was more likely to scrutinise and not to give directions.”

If there is to be faith in HSSIB, we must heed the Joint Committee’s warnings and ensure that the reporting mechanism is sufficient to ensure confidence in the body and to prevent reports from simply being filed away without scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will agree that confidence in HSSIB and its effectiveness to improve patient safety are integral and that he will support the amendment. There has been a little concern about placing requirements on the Secretary of State throughout proceedings on the Bill, so I hope that a requirement for him to present a report once every 12 months would not be too onerous but will be considered an appropriate and acceptable measure.

[Edward Argar]

Clause 97 deals with HSSIB’s final report following an investigation and sets out what a report should include, such as the overall findings, with analysis of what has happened. If the report concerns an investigation that the Secretary of State directed HSSIB to undertake, HSSIB will be required to send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State. I understand that the purpose of amendment 124 is to require the Secretary of State to consider the report and then report to Parliament within 12 months on what action has been taken as a result. Although I can certainly see that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure transparency, accountability and follow-up, I am not convinced that it is the right way to achieve that understandable and legitimate aim.

We expect HSSIB to conduct about 30 investigations a year, which means that the Secretary of State would need to report on 30 separate reports. I worry that that would be unnecessarily burdensome without delivering significant improvements in patient safety. The final HSSIB report will be published, and we expect that the recommendations will most likely be directed at and actioned by others. Organisations are required to respond to HSSIB’s recommendations, and HSSIB may publish those responses. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Secretary of State to publish an additional report, particularly if there is no action for the Secretary of State to take following HSSIB’s recommendations.

Parliament will be able to use its normal routes to hold Ministers to account and ask what progress has been made following these reports, which of course will be published by HSSIB and open to public scrutiny. I do not consider it necessary for HSSIB to send the Secretary of State a copy of the report, as this will be available to everybody without that additional step. I will therefore encourage the shadow Minister to consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Justin Madders]

The Minister makes some fair points, and we are aware that there are other channels to pursue these matters. However, it did seem a bit incongruous that the Secretary of State would have certain requirements on him if he directed a report but not otherwise. Again, we will see, as the body moves forward over the next few years, whether the scrutiny arrangements in place are indeed effective, so we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Edward Argar]

Clause 97 deals with HSSIB’s final report following an investigation. It sets out that a report should include the overall findings, with analysis of what has happened. It is important that the emphasis of any such report is put on identifying risks to the safety of patients and addressing those risks by facilitating the improvement of systems and practices in the provision of NHS services or other healthcare services in England. Therefore, HSSIB should include recommendations about how any risks should be addressed. If an investigation has been commissioned by the Secretary of State, HSSIB will be required to send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.

As I have mentioned previously, we are clear that the purpose of any investigation is to address issues so that we improve patient safety. We want to ensure that the NHS gains as much as it can from all investigations, even if they may not always relate to the NHS. The clause therefore sets out that if the investigation relates to an incident that has not occurred during the provision of NHS services, HSSIB must consider whether the systems and practices in the provision of NHS services could be improved.

The clause also sets out that there should be no assessment of blame, civil or criminal liability, or whether regulatory action should be taken against an individual in the report. That is not the role of HSSIB investigations, and any such assessment would discourage individuals from speaking candidly to HSSIB and could result in lessons not being learned. HSSIB plays a complementary but very different role from the police and regulators. Finally, the clause allows HSSIB to release protected material as part of the report if certain criteria are met.

The purpose of this clause is to set out the expectations on reporting from HSSIB following an investigation. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 97 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 98

Interim reports

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 99 to 101 stand part.

[Edward Argar]

These clauses continue on the same theme as clause 97 and focus on HSSIB’s reports. I turn first to clause 98, which essentially allows HSSIB to publish an interim report with findings, recommendations and conclusions before the final report. The aim of the interim report is to address urgent risks to the safety of patients or issues that are known early in an investigation, so that swift action can be taken and lessons can be learned across healthcare systems as findings emerge.

Clause 99 requires HSSIB to share a draft of an interim report or a final report with those who are likely to be adversely affected by it, and to seek their comments—that might be NHS staff or other participants. HSSIB may also share a draft report with any other person who they believe should be sent a copy, which might include patients and families. That is to ensure that the interim and final reports are robust and an accurate reflection of what has happened, adding to the rigour of the investigation. It also gives individuals an opportunity to respond to adverse findings in advance of publication of the report.

Clause 100 describes what needs to happen once an interim report or a final report is published by HSSIB. It requires the addressees of the report to provide a response to the recommendations within the timeframe specified by HSSIB, and HSSIB may publish the response. The clause will ensure that it is clear and transparent what actions will be taken to address the recommendations. The clause is drafted to ensure that it does not encroach on the devolved competence of Wales. For example, the duty to respond to recommendations would not apply to any body that is or could be established by the Welsh Parliament. HSSIB may still make recommendations to persons in Wales, and certain types of organisations would be required to respond—for example, a private sector organisation in the health sector. The clause will ensure that there is follow-up to the recommendations in the report from HSSIB.

Finally, clause 101 sets out that unless the High Court makes an order to the contrary, final and interim reports prepared by HSSIB following an investigation, including drafts of the reports, are not admissible in proceedings to determine civil or criminal liability, proceedings before any employment tribunal, proceedings before a regulatory body—including proceedings for the purpose of investigating an allegation—and proceedings to determine an appeal against a decision made in any of the above types of proceedings. That is a demonstration of our commitment, as mentioned before, that we want the investigations to provide useful learning and foster a continuous improvement mindset for the benefit of all patients, rather than apportion blame.

There may be circumstances whereby a person involved in the above proceedings applies to the High Court for the report to be admissible. In that case, it will be for the High Court to determine whether it is in the interests of justice for such information to be made admissible, using the test set out in the Bill: whether the interests of justice are served by admitting the report and outweigh any adverse impact on investigations by deterring people from giving information to inform an investigation and any adverse impact on securing the improvement of the safety of healthcare services provided to patients in England. I suspect this is a theme that we will explore when we debate subsequent clauses and amendments. I know that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire will wish to explore it further when we reach those clauses.

Clause 101 clarifies the circumstances under which a report can be used in legal proceedings. It is an important element of ensuring that safe space works in the way we intend, strikes an appropriate balance and encourages individuals to speak to HSSIB in a candid way. However, we rightly also provide the High Court order safeguard, so that the interests of justice can also be taken into account where appropriate. We believe that strikes an appropriate balance in this particular context, and that these clauses set out important provisions regarding HSSIB’s reports. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the provisions here, and the ability to produce interim reports under clause 98 is welcome. We can all envisage circumstances in which such action would be of benefit. I note that the requirement to circulate the report to all interested parties in draft form also applies to interim reports. On clause 99, which is about draft reports, I agree that it is right that HSSIB should be able to judge for itself to whom it is appropriate for the draft report to be made available. Under clause 99(4), however, is there a need for comments that are not accepted in the draft stage to be published alongside HSSIB’s response, explaining why those comments have not been accepted at the same time as the final report is published? I do not think that is something that needs to be prescribed in legislation, but it may be something that HSSIB considers doing in some form, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on the desirability or otherwise of such a move.

16:44

Clause 100 and the response to any report that is produced is really the nub of it all. Clauses 103 and 104 provide that the recipient of any report should set out in writing what they intend to do in response to the report. I refer again to the evidence of Keith Conradi to the Committee that,

“I think that there needs to be a separate, probably pan-regulation-type body that looks at whether the outcome at the end of the day mitigated the patient safety risk that we first went out to investigate.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 61, Q79.]

That is a matter that we need to put on the record.

Clause 100(5) states:

“The HSSIB may publish the response.”

While we do want to prescribe actions that it should take in those circumstances, I want to put on record our hope that it would be the norm for such a response to be published. The importance of transparency on delivering change cannot be overstated in these circumstances.

The recommendations made by the Health and Social Care Committee on the safety of maternity services in England on 6 July 2021 stated that the learning from reports should be shared

“in a more systematic and accessible manner.”

That is something we hope the Bill would encourage.

Finally, I will say a few words on clause 101. As the Minister said, it sets out very clearly that such reports will not be admissible in proceedings laid out in subsection (2). The only exceptions are the power of the High Court, as set out in subsections (3) and (5), to order that such reports be admissible in proceedings. We will no doubt come on to exceptions to that later and whether they are desirable or indeed necessary, but the ability of the High Court to intervene in exceptional circumstances, having considered all the competing interests, is probably the right balance to strike.

The occasions when the exception is used will be extremely limited. I refer the Committee to the reasons set out by Mr Justice Singh in the case of Chief Constable of Sussex Police v. Secretary of State for Transport and British Airline Pilots Association, which related to the disclosure of evidence obtained during the course of the investigation into the Shoreham air disaster, which was conducted by the air accidents investigation branch. In his judgment, Mr Justice Singh referred to what he described as

“a serious and obvious ‘chilling effect’ which would tend to deter people from answering questions by the AAIB with the candour which is necessary when accidents of this sort have to be investigated by it. This would seriously hamper future accident investigations and the protection of public safety by the learning of lessons which may help to prevent similar accidents.”

That sets out very well why we would not expect or indeed want the High Court to become a regular adjudicator on the matters set out in clause 101.

[Dr Whitford]

In clause 100 there is discussion about the response to the report, and that is crucial. If this ends up just being a job creation scheme within HSSIB, it will have failed utterly. Having spent more than three decades in the NHS and been involved in multiple designs, redesigns, stakeholder events and so on, a lot of things get filed in that little round filing cabinet in the corner. Therefore, the response to recommendations and their coming into effect is critical.

I was on the Joint Committee on the Draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill under the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), and we went through this in detail over months. In Scotland, our approach is the opposite. We start at the other end, which is trying to prevent. The Scottish patient safety programme has been working on that since 2007— reducing not just hospital deaths, cutting post-op mortality by 37% within two years of introduction, but expensive morbidity such as pressure sores or wound infections that have an impact on patients and on the NHS.

HSSIB is looking at the other end. Obviously, it does not apply in Scotland, but it is something that I really welcome, and that we will watch with interest. I will not go into disclosure now. That will come later, but not seeing action, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston referred to, with recommendations that have already been made, simply demotivates people to engage in it all. It is critical that we see a response, and that there is a mechanism to see an answer.

The admissibility of the report is also critical if we want staff to be candid, particularly where they may be admitting an error or something that they regret, and there has been a systematic failure of its being prevented. It is often said that we can design safety nets so that an error that someone makes at 2 o’clock in the morning because they are tired can be prevented. We therefore need people to be willing to admit that, and we need those reports not to result in action against them. As we will see when we come on to disclosure, that does not pertain if illegal action has been taken, but I think the two clauses are critical. I do not see in clause 100, or anywhere, what will happen after the reports come out, and how we ensure that it results in an increase in patient safety.

[Edward Argar]

I take the hon. Lady’s point. As I set out in response to earlier amendments and preceding clauses, I believe that we have struck the right balance on the obligation to respond and act, but I acknowledge, as I frequently do in these Committees, her expertise, particularly in this area, having sat on the Committee that previously considered the matter. I think that we have struck the right balance, but I am always happy to reflect further.

I can give the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, within bounds, the reassurance, or agreement with what he is saying, that he seeks, with a caveat: I would hope that transparency and publication should be at the fore, but in doing that, and determining the other points that he raised, as he acknowledged that is for HSSIB to reflect on and consider within the context of its independence. I would hope, and expect, that it would consider extremely carefully exactly such points as those that he made, because they sounded like sensible points, as is often the case with him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 99 to 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102

Powers of entry, inspection and seizure

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 125, in clause 102, page 90, line 21, leave out subsection (6).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clauses 103 to 105 stand part.

[Justin Madders]

Clause 102 deals with power of entry, which amendment 125 seeks to qualify somewhat. There is no doubt that these powers are necessary. The evidence that Keith Conradi gave to the Committee was that HSIB would have liked to have had the powers already, so it welcomes their inclusion in the Bill. One would hope that the need for compulsion and the use of force, as set out in the clause, will be rarely needed, but time will tell. Of course, we would expect such powers to be exercised proportionately and reasonably in any event.

Our amendment would delete clause 102(6), which once again appears to place significant powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, effectively enabling them to block any investigations or inspections that HSSIB might want to undertake under the clause on the grounds of national security. Of course, we are not suggesting for a minute that national security issues are not a legitimate issue for the Secretary of State to be concerned about, but I really am struggling to think of a situation where investigations in the NHS on issues of patient safety could also properly be considered matters of national security. If the Minister can provide me with a list of patient safety incidents in recent times in which investigations have not been concluded because national security implications have intervened, we will reconsider our objections to subsection (6). On the face of it, however, it just looks like another unnecessary power grab by the Secretary of State that again risks compromising the independence of HSSIB.

It is also a concern that there appears to be only one person who can decide whether something is a matter of national security. That person is the Secretary of State. He and he alone decides what is a national security issue and members of the Committee will see how that means that we have to place a lot of trust in someone who should not really get involved in these investigations. Why is it this Secretary of State and not the Home Secretary or the Defence Secretary who might be better placed to judge matters of national security? Why have this power at all? We are asking what the real or imaginary problem is that this power is attempting to solve.

Clauses 103 to 105 provide a power to compel individuals to co-operate. We hope that, as time moves on, we see the need for that power to be used less and less. I hope that we all want to see over time a shift away from the defensive culture that sometimes pervades the NHS. The adage that one volunteer is better than 10 pressed men applies here. Some of the softer issues that may arise around the organisation may come out more easily in the context of someone being able to talk candidly and voluntarily about their experiences. I accept that not everyone will feel comfortable doing that, which is why the powers may be necessary, but the key is not the power to compel people to give evidence but the power to instil confidence that there is a safe space for discussions on patient safety.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the shadow Minister agree that this relates to the whole issue, which we will come on to shortly, of protecting the safe space and the protective materials that go along with that? Some of the discussions may involve someone revealing their own errors or weaknesses or talking about interpersonal relationships. They are very sensitive issues that we cannot compel someone to talk about. We can make someone turn up, but we simply cannot compel them to discuss things that make them feel more vulnerable.

[Justin Madders]

The Scottish National party spokesperson sets out very well why we do not want the power to have to be used any more than is necessary. The quality of the investigations would not be as good as we would want and lessons may not be learned that could otherwise have been learned.

I have a few questions for the Minister on some of the specifics in the clause. Under clause 103(1)(a), the requirement is that a person must attend

“at a specified time and place”.

I would expect such a request to be given with reasonable notice and to take place at a reasonable time. It does not state that in the Bill, but one would hope that that is a given. Anything that the Minister can say on that would be helpful. It also raises the question about whether such a request could be blocked by an employer requiring a person to be in work at the same time. Clearly in those circumstances, the employer may have an interest in the investigation as well. Will the Minister say something about guidance being issued on the importance of ensuring that individuals who receive such requests are in fact supported by their employers to comply with them?

If someone attends an interview, do they do so alone or do they have the right to be accompanied by a work colleague, a trade union rep or even a lawyer? They may not want any of those people there but, given that one of the grounds for refusing to comply with a request under subsection (3)(c) is that documents are protected by legal professional privilege, I suggest there might be a role for the legal profession. I am not trying to generate more work for my former colleagues when I say that.

Is there a reason to challenge such a request? If we are in the realms of compulsion, the person will probably be not the most useful person from which to obtain information. They may have health issues or other legitimate grounds for declining the request, so what do they do in such circumstances? If the Minister could provide any insight on that, it would be useful.

Finally, I want to ask questions about the criminal offences set out in clause 105. It is probably right that there should be a sanction on those who obstruct and those who refuse to comply or, indeed, provide false or misleading information. Subsection (5) says there will be a fine, but what level of fine does the Minister envisage it will be? Does he have a view on whether an act that leads to a fine might also constitute professional misconduct if the individual were a member of a royal college, for example? A referral to the regulator might have a more powerful effect than a fine. Those are a few matters for the Minister to consider and I hope that he will address them in his response.

17:00

[Edward Argar]

Clauses 102 to 105 all relate to HSSIB’s powers when conducting investigations. Clause 102 sets out HSSIB’s powers of entry, inspection and seizure. They are important powers for any investigatory body. It is expected, however, that in most cases staff and organisations will co-operate willingly with the HSSIB investigators, and that includes giving consent to the investigators to enter premises and providing them with the relevant documents. Where consent is not given, clause 102(1)(a) gives HSSIB the powers to enter and inspect premises in England. They are similar powers to those held by other investigatory bodies in safety-critical industries, such as the air accidents investigation branch. To use a phrase that I have used far too many times in these debates with the hon. Member for Nottingham North, they could almost be described as a backstop for the body when that is deemed necessary. If the investigator considers it necessary for the purpose of furthering the investigation, it may enter and inspect premises in England, inspect and take copies of the documents at the premises, inspect equipment or other items at the premises, and seize and remove documents, equipment or items unless doing so would put patient safety at risk. The current investigation branch has no power of entry or ability to seize or require information from individuals or other bodies. It has, in some situations, therefore been hampered in its ability to investigate incidents, so we want to ensure that the new body has such powers that it will be able to use in a proportionate manner were it to need them.

The clause also sets out that the power of entry does not apply to premises that are used wholly or mainly as a private dwelling. An investigator can therefore enter a private dwelling only with consent. This could apply, for example, where domiciliary care is provided to a patient and would mean that an investigator would need to obtain consent from the resident before entering their home. It is an important and proportionate limitation of the power. The Government are committed to ensuring that private and family life is respected, including in relation to the exercise of the powers of entry, by ensuring that premises consisting wholly or mainly of private dwellings are protected from unnecessary intrusion. The power of entry contained in the Bill aligns with that important principle.

The Secretary of State can also restrict the powers if he or she believes that it is appropriate and, as the shadow Minister alluded to, in the interests of national security. On this point, I will deal briefly with amendment 125. As discussed, the powers in clause 102 allow HSSIB to enter premises in which there is a Crown interest. This is to ensure that the new body can inspect premises where NHS services may be provided on Crown land, such as in a prison or on land owned by the Ministry of Defence. To ensure that this power of entry does not interfere with the safe running of such premises, HSSIB must give reasonable notice to the occupier of the premises of its intention to enter and inspect the premises. As discussed, that ensures that the national security elements of any provision at those premises—whether a Ministry of Defence facility or base—are not compromised. This provision allows the Secretary of State to issue a certificate that may limit HSSIB’s powers of entry, inspection and seizure. Such a certificate may also cover premises in which there is not a Crown interest.

We do not envisage that such certificate would often be issued. Indeed, they would be issued very rarely, but they may be necessary to restrict entry in certain circumstances and we think it might be appropriate in the context of a high-security prison or laboratory. Here restrictions could be placed on HSSIB, such as preventing it from taking copies of sensitive or restricted documents if their reproduction or removal could pose a national security risk. We believe we have struck an appropriate balance and that it is right to do this, so it can be debated by parliamentarians during the passage of the Bill. It is not a new approach. Section 96(5) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 introduced similar provisions in relation to the Care Quality Commission’s powers of entry and inspection. If the amendment were accepted, it could cause significant operational difficulties and risks to HSSIB staff and potentially, in very narrow circumstances, to national security more widely. We do not envisage the power being used frequently, but it is important that the there is no concomitant risk to national security from the powers being used. It is important that we keep the provision in the Bill as drafted.

What clause 102 sets out by way of powers of entry, inspection and seizure can only benefit HSSIB as the current investigation branch is hampered by the lack of such powers. These powers will greatly improve the way investigations are conducted, but we also consider them to be proportionate and justified, given the aim of improving patient safety. Importantly, HSSIB investigators will operate in accordance with the Home Office code of practice on powers of entry under section 48 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

As I have said, while we expect most organisations and staff in most cases to co-operative voluntarily with HSSIB, it is important that in the course of its investigations, it collects all the information that it needs. Clause 103 sets out its powers to require such information. Specifically, it gives powers to HSSIB to require a person to attend an interview and to provide, by a specified deadline, documents, equipment or other information needed to help with the investigation. HSSIB must also give an explanation of the consequences of failure to comply with the notice. For example, it could be a criminal offence as set out in clause 105. On receipt of the information, HSSIB may retain information and if the safety of the patient is at risk, it can share this information. The clause specifies, however, that the person is not required to provide anything on the risk to the safety of the patient if that would incriminate them or if the information is normally covered by legal professional privilege.

Clause 104 is a short clause that allows a person to disclose information, documents, equipment or other items to HSSIB without being asked if they reasonably believe disclosure is necessary to enable HSSIB to carry out its investigation function. This could, for example, enable a member of hospital staff to provide information to the new body when they had concerns about a patient safety incident. It is exactly the kind of co-operative behaviour that we would want to encourage so that improvements can be made promptly. As such, it is important that the clause is included in the Bill.

Finally, clause 105 sets out offences relating to investigations. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised a couple of specific points and I will deal with them before I conclude. First, my understanding is that the fines are potentially unlimited in scale. He asked about the process in carrying out investigations and whether the person could be accompanied by a legal or trade union representative or someone of that ilk. The Bill does not preclude an individual from being accompanied at an interview. Although it is important to note that HSSIB will set out in more detail what its processes will be to ensure that they are transparent, the aim of the interviews will be to encourage free and open discussion. Therefore, I would be cautious about individuals feeling that they always have a need to be accompanied by a legal or trade union representative. The Bill does not specifically prohibit that, but I hope that HSSIB will develop its processes and will be transparent about how they will work.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about reasonableness, I very much hope that were the powers to be needed, we would see all that all avenues of co-operation had been exhausted and that they were, to coin a phrase, the backstop. I hope that meetings, conversations and interviews would be by consent and co-operation at a mutually agreed time that reflects the individual’s circumstances.

Clause 105 sets out that it would be an offence intentionally to obstruct an investigator when exercising their powers of entry, inspection and seizure or for someone to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with a notice to provide information. It would also be an offence to provide false or misleading information to an investigator. While we very much hope that the powers and the associated offences will never need to be used—as I have said, we expect voluntary co-operation to occur in most cases—it is important that the Bill includes such powers and sanctions. That will ensure that HSSIB can fully carry out its important investigation functions with the full co-operation from the necessary parties at all times. The clauses are all important to ensure that HSSIB can effectively conduct its investigations. I therefore commend them to the Committee.

[Justin Madders]

In the light of the Minister’s comments and his expectation that the powers will rarely be used—we will hold him to that—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 103 to 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.  

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned—(Steve Double.) 

17:11

Adjourned till Thursday 21 October at half-past Eleven o’clock. 

Written evidence reported to the House

HCB84 Roger Fiskin

HCB85 Janice Bray

HCB86 Royal College of Nursing

HCB87 Independent Advisory Panel of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch

HCB88 Ferrero

HCB89 Eat Natural

HCB90 Kellogg’s

HCB91 Lee Irving

HCB92 Colin and Ann Wills

HCB93 Professor Martin Green OBE, Chief Executive, Care England

HCB94 Mark E Thomas, Founder, The 99% Organisation, and Visiting Professor, IE Business School

HCB95 Barnardo’s

HCB96 Mrs Lisa Crombleholme

HCB97 Adam Dimond

HCB98 Cynthia Bagchi

HCB99 Finn McAleer

HCB100 Obesity Health Alliance (re: Schedule 16 of Part 5 of the Bill)

HCB101 Nursing and Midwifery Council

HCB102 Information Commissioner

HCB103 Christopher Farley

HCB104 Jan Brears

HCB105 Ifé Mbiada

HCB106 Dr M Tallerman

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 19 October 2021

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Westminster Hall

Post Office Closures

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I remind all Members of the guidance from the House of Commons Commission and the Government to wear masks and to give other Members appropriate space when entering or leaving the room.

I recognise that the House rightly paid tribute to Sir David Amess, given the tragedy of his killing last week, but we should also remind ourselves that Sir David was a highly respected and long-serving member of the Panel of Chairs. In other circumstances, he might have been in my place today. Without getting formal, we will all want to think our own personal thoughts about the contribution that Sir David made as a Chair and in other ways as a Member of this House, about the incredible loss and grief felt for him, and about his family at this time.

09:31

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of post office closures on local communities.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I will add my own tribute to Sir David. He was a wonderful man and will be sadly missed by everyone across Parliament.

I extend my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee and to all the Members present. I am sure they will be speaking about how important and valued their local post offices and post office staff are, and about the effect of post office closures on their communities. This debate on the effect of post office closures on local communities is important.

I thank the Minister for attending. I am glad that he is still in post. It is imperative that the UK Government have someone overseeing the Post Office brief who understands it, who can see that the Horizon scandal is concluded satisfactorily, with all its victims and their families compensated, and who will ensure that the post office network continues unabated.

Post offices are at the heart of our communities. They are used most regularly by the most vulnerable members of society—the elderly, people with disabilities and those who are unable to work, for example—and more than nine in 10 people agree that post offices provide an essential service for them or others. Communities suffer when post offices close, whether temporarily or for good. Local residents and businesses suffer serious inconvenience. For some, the withdrawal of perhaps their only regular human contact causes real misery and hardship.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, and on behalf of all its members, I thank postmasters and post office staff—those key workers— across the UK, who have served us well throughout the pandemic. They have been a lifeline to many people through their work at the heart of our community.

The APPG on post offices is close to my heart, as the plight of sub-postmasters in Motherwell and Wishaw was one of the first campaigns I was involved in. We have no secretariat for the APPG and I am very grateful for the additional work that my staff put in to ensure that the APPG runs smoothly. We are a big-tent APPG, with MPs and peers from all political parties and none, and diverse organisations such as the National Federation of SubPostmasters, the Communication Workers Union, Citizens Advice, the Association of Convenience Stores, and the Countryside Alliance. All those organisations are testament to the importance of the post office network across the UK.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

That broad range of stakeholders my hon. Friend has just told us about reflects the fact that a broad range of communities are still focused on the need for post offices in their local areas. Does she agree that we must heed the asks of community organisations? Broom, Kirkhill and Mearnskirk Community Council is keen to secure post office services in its local area, because it knows how much they matter for the most vulnerable in our society, as she said.

[Marion Fellows]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. What she says is absolutely true. I am sure that all of us present and further afield would vouch for the real feeling for post offices across the entire UK. In fact, I have been known to say in the APPG that the reason I took on its chairmanship was to ensure that there was a network of post offices in an independent Scotland—that network is right across the UK.

We have also spoken to franchisee representatives, and we hold regular meetings with the CEO of Post Office Ltd and the Minister. Recently, the APPG decided to be less reactive and more proactive in its approach to sustaining the network. The APPG is currently compiling a Post Office action plan, to provide an outline vision for the network going forward. I hope the UK Government and Post Office Ltd will carefully and seriously consider the proposals put forward by members.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, for securing this debate and for the work that she does on behalf of our post offices. I am sure that, like many hon. Members, she has received representations over recent weeks from charities based in her constituency that are very concerned about commercial banks levying charges on their activities. For many of those charities and community groups, those charges are going to be prohibitive. Does she believe that the Post Office could fill the void that is being left by the commercial banks by providing a community banking service, expanding banking services, safeguarding the Post Office and helping to improve the lives of our communities?

[Marion Fellows]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Yes, I think that it could. Although the Post Office was almost coerced into taking on banking, it is something that we need to seriously look at. There are models in other countries’ post office networks, and there have been studies. That is an excellent suggestion.

As we all know, the UK Government are the owners of the post office network; they cannot sit idly by, allowing closures and the impact that they have on local communities and economies. The public expects the Government to play a proactive and direct role in preserving and growing the network. Post offices may not be the first things that spring to mind when thinking of public services, but whenever a post office closes it is always missed. Post offices are, without a doubt, valued public assets and must remain so. Closures not only create an inconvenience but harm local businesses and the welfare of local people, given that the most vulnerable people rely on post offices for access to cash.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for her work with the APPG on post offices. In my constituency, which is facing four closures, the answer in the short term seems to be mobile services. Does she agree that those are simply insufficient for communities and that we should be urging the UK Government and the Post Office to look for longer-term solutions?

[Marion Fellows]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Lady for intervening. Her constituency was one of the most affected by the SPAR closures in Scotland, to which I will refer later, as well as outreach services.

It is devastating for everyone when a branch is closed, especially when it happens in a rural community where the post office may be not only the last shop in the village but also the last bank.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am really grateful for all the hon. Lady does on behalf of post offices. In York, in my short time in Parliament, we have lost post offices in Acomb and Tang Hall, we have lost two in Clifton and we have lost our Crown post office—it is now placed in a WH Smith, which is far more inaccessible than it was previously. Does she agree that, before any post office closure, there should be a community consultation about how that estate could be repurposed as a community service?

[Marion Fellows]

Absolutely. I know how hard the hon. Lady has worked for her constituents in York and with regard to the Crown post office closure there.

Post offices support local businesses. Half of those who started selling online during the pandemic have used the post office to post items, while three in four marketplace sellers say that if their local post office were to close, it would become difficult to send items to their customers. In my constituency of Motherwell and Wishaw, communities have experienced both temporary and permanent closures, notably the permanent closure of the Brandon Street Crown branch in Motherwell town centre. Sadly, many Crown branches have been closed—decisions typically opposed by the communities affected. Unlike smaller branches, Crown post offices offered a wide range of services, which made them service hubs at the heart of communities.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

While post office closures present a real issue for local communities, some initiatives have the potential to provide great support to those communities. Cambuslang in my constituency is home to a post office bank hub, which has massively increased access to banking services, and I was delighted that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury visited the constituency last week to hear all about that fantastic initiative. Does the hon. Member agree that the focus should be on rolling out these multi-purpose initiatives?

[Marion Fellows]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I, too, visited Cambuslang a number of months ago, and it is a great initiative. The local community council fought hard for that pilot, and it was doing great work. I think there is a way forward through that kind of initiative, which again I will come on to.

There are multiple reasons for branch closures, but at the root of many of them is the issue of sub-postmaster remuneration. Post Office Ltd must agree a fair deal with sub-postmasters. The Horizon scandal has undoubtedly damaged the relationship between Post Office Ltd and sub-postmasters and staff, and the ongoing work to repair that relationship must continue. Now more than ever, it is essential that sub-postmasters are properly remunerated. Many of the sub-postmasters I have spoken to have said that they have handed in their keys because they simply cannot afford to live on the income they make from running a post office. Some sub-postmasters have even reported that they have been earning less than the minimum wage.

That is simply not good enough. Citizens Advice has found that the number of temporarily closed branches has doubled since 2013, and that two in three remain closed for over a year and two in five for over two years. Poor remuneration is not just forcing sub-postmasters to retire or postpone retirement; it is preventing a new generation from taking up the role, as they see no value in it. The UK Government must provide the funding, and Post Office Ltd must agree to guarantee a minimum income for every sub-postmaster so that their hard work pays off and running a post office can be an attractive opportunity.

Another reason for concern is the over-reliance on franchise postmasters—not independent sub-postmasters, I hasten to add, but large retail chains. Only this year, SPAR announced the closure of 31 of its 48 Scottish counters. If a larger retail partner were to go into administration or decide that having a post office counter was not worth their while, that could leave hundreds of communities without a local branch. I fear that Post Office Ltd is fighting a losing battle with large franchisees and putting all its eggs in one basket to meet the national access criteria. CJ Lang has said that it made more money from putting a Costa machine into a branch than it did from running a post office. That is an outstanding critique of what is wrong with the post office network at the moment. Can the Minister outline what the Government’s contingency plans are in the event that a large partner decides to close its branches, or close altogether? It is not just up to Post Office Ltd to sort this issue out.

As banks leave high streets and town centres, post offices are filling the gap. Over 4,300 bank branches and building societies have closed since 2015—over a third of the entire network. In fact, post office branches now represent 60% of all the UK’s branch-based cash access points. Banking and access to cash must therefore be part of the long-term vision for the network. In September, Post Office Ltd announced that it had taken in £2.9 billion of deposits, with that figure expected to rise to over £3 billion this month. Many local businesses are using post office branches to make deposits, and others who rely on cash are using those branches for withdrawals. As post offices take on a greater financial role, the security of branches and staff must be reviewed. In my discussions with sub-postmasters, they have raised concerns about security. I hope that the Minister will elaborate on what steps he has taken and what discussions he has had, or will have, with Post Office Ltd on the issue of branch security.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being so generous. When a company in the rail industry cannot operate, an operator of last resort is backed by the Government. To maintain these community assets, surely we need a model whereby the Government step in; and would that not also be a step towards what is really needed, which is to look at nationalising the Post Office, which we know our communities really do want?

[Marion Fellows]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; again, she hits the nail right on the head. I welcome the pilot of the post office banking hubs. However, I am aware that many sub-postmasters are concerned about the impact they will have on existing branches, and I share their concerns. We cannot have branches in competition with and cannibalising each other. The full impact on existing branches must be watched closely.

However, I give full support to the private Member’s Bill in the name of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who unfortunately cannot be here today. It aims to establish in law that major banks will be obligated to provide banking services through local post office branches.

Banks have been let off the hook. They are abandoning town centres, villages and customers. Not only should banks be mandated to provide their services through post offices via the banking framework, they must be made to pay for the outreach and banking services that the post office network provides. At present, many sub-postmasters are subsidising the running of these services. That cannot be allowed to continue. Will the Minister confirm today that the Government will back the Bill from the hon. Member for North Norfolk and, if not, what alternatives will be put in place?

Post offices are just one means of accessing cash, and losing a bank branch can make it much more difficult for people to access cash. The UK Government previously committed to an access to cash Bill, which has not yet been forthcoming. We are hurtling towards a cashless society, which will undoubtedly impact the most vulnerable people. Measured action is needed so that cash can be available free of charge to those who prefer it. Can the Minister confirm whether it is still the Government’s intention to introduce a Bill in the coming parliamentary term?

I understand that some of this is under the auspices of the Treasury, but we cannot keep passing the buck and going backwards and forwards, nor can we have the silo mentality whereby one Government Department is responsible for the money to post offices and the Minister has to say, “Well, it’s not my job, it’s the Treasury.” We need joined-up thinking on this.

The Post Office has massive potential to provide not just banking services, but a range of services. The UK Government have previously committed to making post offices the front office of Government. With over 11,500 branches across these islands, they are perfectly placed to be that, but the UK Government have pulled service after service from the network, most notably the Post Office card account. One million people used a POCA in 2019 and this has fallen since the forced migration of recipients to bank accounts.

However, for many, a bank account is still out of reach. It is also an additional and unnecessary hoop for people to jump through to receive their benefit payments or pensions. It makes no sense that when banks are leaving and post offices remain, a greater emphasis would be put on banking.

Other services, such as biometric enrolment and HMRC payments, have also been removed. Whenever the UK Government remove a service, that means less income for the post office network and its sub-postmasters, which makes closures more likely. The income derived from these services can be small, but proves how important it is to encourage people to use their post office services.

The Minister has heard me speak many times on post offices, as has everyone else in this Chamber. That is because they are an important service that people across the UK recognise, use, value and need. It is vital that the post office network continues in spite of the difficulties that Horizon has forced on to Post Office Ltd. I appreciate that the Government have given money, but I and many others are concerned that the situation will lead in the end to a diminution of post office services. I plead with and urge the Minister to make sure that the post office network continues, grows and thrives, and that those who run post offices on our behalf are suitably recompensed.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Six Members have indicated that they would like to speak. In order to start the Front Benchers at no later than half past 10, I would suggest about six minutes for each Back Bencher. I call Andy Slaughter.

09:50

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Betts. You paid tribute earlier to Sir David in another of his roles here, and it occurred to me as you were doing so that this is exactly the sort of debate he would have loved, because it is about championing essential services in our constituencies.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing the debate. This is an important issue—it has been for many years, and it is a shame that we have watched the decline of the post office network over that period. It should not really need saying that post offices are essential services and that they are part of our communities, but sometimes I think Post Office Ltd needs to be convinced of that. Association of Convenience Stores public surveys have shown that post offices are considered the most essential services in the community. There is also the work done by Citizens Advice. Most of all, there is the response from our constituents when offices close permanently or temporarily. That should tell us all, lest there be any doubt in the Minister’s mind, that post offices continue to be absolutely vital to sustaining communities.

It is true that there was a downsizing in the network in the 2000s and that many branches closed. I represent a constituency in a fairly small borough where there were eight proposed closures. After a very vigorous campaign, we managed to keep five of those open. Across the country, many hundreds of branches did close then. If there was any silver lining in that cloud, it was that we were told that it would make the network sustainable and able to stand on its own feet and that that would be the end of it.

There was still a sustainable network left at that point. However, a bit like with court closures, the Government seemed to get the taste from that, and we have continued to run down the network in what has really been death by a thousand cuts. We have seen a complete reduction of the Crown post office network. Whenever there is a retirement or a redevelopment, which happens quite often in my constituency, it is difficult to sustain the service and keep the office open.

I want to come on to the plague of the so-called temporary closure. I have two town centres in my constituency, in Hammersmith and Shepherds Bush. They both used to have thriving Crown offices—substantial public buildings. Hammersmith’s post office had been there for a century, since 1920, and was important not just for the functions it carried out, but as a notable public building. There were three Crown post offices in the constituency at one time and they have all gone now. We have only a third of the Crown network that we had 10 years ago.

In many cases, the product of this situation has been the rather unhappy liaison with WHSmith. It is quite easy to see why Post Office Ltd saw the attraction of WHSmith. It tends to provide space for no rental, because it is not a thriving business and wants to draw custom into its stores. In a way, it has become a marriage of two failing enterprises trying to support each other, and not a very happy one.

In Shepherds Bush, I lost the town centre Crown post office, which went into a WHSmith in the Westfield shopping centre; similarly, Hammersmith’s post office went into a WHSmith there. But at least they were continuing, and Post Office Ltd conceded that we needed town centre offices. Two years ago they told me they would find a new office for Shepherds Bush centre, but that has never materialised. That is partly, I am sure, because of covid but it shows that there is no follow-up when these things happen.

A year ago, the main office in Hammersmith closed. These are extremely busy and thriving town centres. They both had a huge throughput because of office workers during the day and they are busy shopping centres seven days a week. We know that there is a need for a continuing post office service, because the surrounding small branch offices, even when they are half a mile or a mile away, have queues outside because the main offices have closed. That is all the more extraordinary, given that most of the major banks have substantially reduced their branch networks. I used the example of Shepherds Bush, where NatWest, Barclays and Santander have all closed branches. The last remaining bank, HSBC, has reduced its hours. The post office was the only financial institution providing a great variety of services there, and it is certainly sustainable.

I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on this question. Why does he think there are so many closures? If he says, no, that the network numbers have remained stable over the past years, that would ignore the new practice of temporary closures. I have five temporary closures in my constituency and three of those offices have been closed for more than five years. They are all very important branches. The one in St Ann’s Road, on the border with Kensington, serves the Edward Woods estate. I say that as I see that the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) is here in her role as Parliamentary Private Secretary. The one in White City is in one of the most deprived parts of my constituency. I declare an interest in that one is just round the corner from my constituency office in the Fulham Palace Road, which we used heavily, as the Minister can imagine. Those three have been closed for more than five years. On top of that we have new closures. There is the one that I mentioned in Hammersmith, which has been closed for a year, with plans for that now abandoned and a return to the beginning with the search for a new sponsor, and there is one at Stamford Brook.

With one promised branch not opened, five branches in temporary closure and the loss of all the Crown offices we had, this is a parlous state of affairs. I ask the Minister specifically to look at the issue of temporary closures. I do not know how a closure of more than five years can be called temporary. Why is it impossible to find locations or postmasters for these places? I think the answer stares us in the face. It is that the terms and conditions that the Post Office is prepared to offer and the efforts it is prepared to put in are not sufficient to regenerate the network. We are being sold a myth that we have a stable network that is continuing at the same level as in previous years. In reality, we see more and more temporary closures that turn into permanent ones.

I hope the Minister agrees with that analysis and that he can respond to it, at least in part. This is a problem that demands his attention and that of the Government if the post office network is to survive into the future.

09:58

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I also associate myself with the comments made about Sir David Amess. I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this important debate. Post offices are the lifeline of communities, especially those in rural areas. The services they provide are vital, including keeping people and loved ones connected. They also provide financial services, which is particularly important in the light of the closure of many high street banks.

I am grateful to have this time to talk about a live issue in my constituency, where Post Office proposes the closure of the Haworth Main Street post office. That is causing a huge issue for many of my constituents in Haworth, the Worth valley and the wider area. In July 2021, Post Office served notice on the sub-postmaster of the Haworth post office that it was to close the service, before launching a consultation. I want to delve deeper into that issue, because I think it is worth noting.

The Post Office informed my sub-postmaster that it would be closing their service and at the same time opening just a desk-based service at the local Co-op at the other end of the village. For those that may not know Haworth, topography and accessibility is a huge issue. The Haworth post office is located at the top of Main Street, right at the top of the village, and the Co-op is located right down at the bottom of the village, down two very steep hills. That makes the service offering very inaccessible for the elderly population living at the top of the village, particularly when a much lesser service offering is proposed at the Co-op.

It creates huge challenges for many businesses along Main Street that use that post office service, including the Brontë Parsonage. Many other locals come to visit Haworth and use the only cash machine, which is located in the Haworth Main Street post office. The consultation process over the summer has been a complete sham. It has not looked at all at the needs of my community. It has not looked at all at the accessibility issues of many of my residents, who will be struggling to use the Co-op service.

I want to pick up on a point eloquently made by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw on the issue of Post Office Ltd putting all its eggs in one basket. If it is going down a route where it specifically looks at putting all its post office services in WHSmith or the Co-op, what if those big service providers decide to cut those services? What does it say for the independent providers, such as the one at the top of Haworth Main Street, that are able to service their communities, who they know best?

The campaign in my constituency has been rolling at a huge pace. We have a fantastic local campaign team. Our parish council and the three district councillors have been very supportive in putting weight and pressure on Post Office Ltd to listen. As a result, I submitted a petition in the Chamber signed by over 7,000 of my constituents, putting pressure on Post Office Ltd to listen. We must maintain our service offering at the top of Main Street, so that my residents feel engaged with the process and can access a good post office service.

To summarise, the message from my constituents in Haworth and the wider Worth valley is very clear. We want to see our Haworth post office at the top of Main Street open, so that residents are able to access that facility and so that we do not feel disengaged. I hope that Post Office Ltd is listening, and that the Government use their weight to put pressure on the Post Office to maintain that service.

10:03

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on bringing forward this important debate, which is very pertinent to my constituency. I want to touch on the tragic death of Sir David. When I arrived four years ago, I remember that he was one of the very first to be a friendly face and greet me. That is all I will say, but that sort of thing stays with you the rest of your days. I mourn his passing, as does my party.

In 1616 it was under the rule of a Scottish king, King James VI of Scotland and I of England, that the Scottish postal service was set up, so we rather led the way. Shortly after the restoration of his grandson King Charles II in 1660, the network of post offices in England was set up. So, once again, a Scottish king showed the way. We have had huge trouble with closures of branches, as others have said, but I will not repeat their remarks. I am going to use one example—the village of Balintore in Easter Ross. When the aforementioned retail business pulled out, we were left with the prospect of having no post office whatsoever. I say to the Minister that I give absolute credit to the people working at the post office for their valid attempts to secure some other arrangement, and they have done it in conjunction with the local Seaboard Memorial Hall. We are going to have a post office—thank God—once again in the village of Balintore. It is not just Balintore but Shandwick and Hilton, and a lot of people live there—believe you me.

It was great that this particular community had a vibrant hall committee that was willing to step in and see whether it could meet halfway with the post office in order to take up the service. They did that, but the trouble is that, looking at my vast constituency—if the Boundary Commission for Scotland has its way, it will get vaster still—not every community has a whole committee or some sort of organisation that is willing to step into the breach to take on that role. Therefore, it is patchy. To use a hackneyed phrase, it is a bit of a postcode lottery in terms of where people live. For the record, I say, “Well done, Balintore,” but it is not so easy to replicate that.

The final point I want to make in my brief contribution is that in a remote part of Scotland, such as my constituency, the post office network is part of the fabric of society, as others have mentioned. People say, “Oh well, the young people can go online,” and so on, but it is not quite as simple as that. Post offices are important to young people as well, and I think we have come to appreciate the value of the face-to-face aspect of the post office through the pandemic.

[Kirsten Oswald]

The hon. Gentleman is making a really important point. The post office has a place right at the heart of our community, especially in difficult times, in my constituency, which is not remote. Tariq Chishti of Netherlee post office has received an award for going above and beyond during the pandemic to support people who were having real difficulty. The staff at Barrhead post office, which I visited recently, have done the same. The Minister should really take heed of the hon. Gentleman’s point about the community at large—all of the community—requiring this service and benefiting from it. That is at the heart of the debate.

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the hon. Lady for that very useful intervention. Her point is very well made indeed.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Further to some of those points, I have been quite fortunate in my constituency, where the Post Office has innovated and placed a sub-post office within the community centre. A common theme of the debate is that it all comes down to remuneration and whether we can make that sustainable. That is the vital point that we need to get across to Ministers.

[Jamie Stone]

My final point is simply this: where there is a post office service being conducted in a retail premises that is not a post office—a newsagent or some other business—there is an issue. I can think of an example in my constituency, where privacy tended to be invaded. Someone would be queuing up and talking to the lady about his or her pension or whatever, but the people behind wanted to buy a copy of the Daily Record or whatever. The person at the counter was uncomfortable with the feeling that the person behind could hear what was being said. That is perhaps an issue for another day, but I say to the Minister that we must remember that for some transactions in post offices, or however we do it in the future, there is a confidentiality aspect. I have no doubt that the Seaboard Memorial Hall in my constituency will do an excellent job and will tackle that privacy aspect of the work as well.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

There are two more Members who wish to speak. As long as we finish by 10.28 am for the wind-ups, we have time for both hon. Members.

10:08

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. There has not been a debate on post office closures that I have not attended or spoken in on behalf of my constituents.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

And many other topics.

[Jim Shannon]

There are many things that interest me.

I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for securing the debate. She has been a real champion of this issue, and we thank her for giving us all the opportunity to participate. It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place, because he understands the importance of post offices. I am sure that he will encapsulate our feelings about post offices, so I look forward to his reply.

Historically, post offices have been central hubs of both rural and urban communities, but. like others, I want to draw attention to their importance to rural communities. I am fortunate that, over a period of time, I have had the opportunity to engage with post offices directly and may be able to chart a way forward. The hon. Lady referred to the closure of Spar shops; I am going to speak about the Spar shops that have given opportunities to the post offices across Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) will also be able to contribute to the discussion. I am absolutely sure that post offices in rural communities and in housing estates have been a vital point for social interaction and accessibility. I will give some examples of just how important this is for people.

There is always a little feeling of dread when I get an email detailing amendments to post office services. I dread the news that services are going to be cut, although, thankfully, such news has not been prevalent recently, probably because of the engagement between post offices and major supermarkets in Northern Ireland to ensure that that we can defer potential closures and cuts. The co-operation with the Spar Henderson group in Northern Ireland has meant that there are many more basic post office functions available in our petrol stations and stores. I am incredibly thankful for that, but they do not provide the full range of services or the same expertise as dedicated post offices. It is clear that demands for the service require the retention of stand-alone post offices, as well as these smaller, satellite offices.

[Mr Campbell]

On the issue of not providing a full range of services, does my hon. Friend agree with me that we need to look to the future? In the past, the Post Office did innovate to some degree with the support of previous Governments, but just as we see credit unions evolving in terms of financial services, we now need to look ahead to the bigger picture over the next 10 to 15 years, and to allow post offices to innovate and evolve to serve the community better in financial services.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which encapsulates what we all feel about how post offices have an integral part to play in the future. We look to the Minister for indication of his vision for the future of post offices, and the importance of having them as an integral part of local communities.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

One of the issues in my constituency is that when one post office closes, rumours start about all the other post offices; I am sure we all feel that. Because of the uncertainty and the precarious environment that post offices are operating in right now, it is very hard to get anybody to invest in them and keep them going. Talking about the long-term future, the Government either have to accept and admit that there is no future for post offices, or they have to legislate to protect the long-term future of the post offices in all our constituencies.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When the Minister sets out his vision for post offices, as I hope he will, he has to retore confidence in the post offices so that they can see a future for themselves financially and viably.

Yesterday morning I had a lady in my office thanking my staff for persevering with her attendance allowance form. She had been notified that her appeal had been upheld. I listened as my staff members reminded her that this additional money was hers, and that she should use it to make her life easier—to get a cleaner or to help pay for a taxi rather than walking everywhere. She said something that struck me and was very important: “I will get a taxi to get my post office money.” It was very clear what she was saying. “I can’t use this card stuff, and they help me to get my cash where I can get all my bills sorted. I don’t know what I will do when they don’t do cash anymore.”

This is replicated dozens of times across my constituency, and I know it is replicated across all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The availability of the help and support that post office staff provide to vulnerable people in our communities cannot be overstated. That lady also said that her life would be turned upside down if she could not get her pension and her money sorted. She said, “The girl in the post office put some money on my gas and electric, and my TV licence bill. She does it all.” This lady is in close contact with the people in the post office. I am so thankful for all those staff who take the time to do what those in a busy petrol filling station simply cannot; I mean no disrespect to them, but it does underline the importance of post offices.

With more and more bank branches closing down, the role of the post office for vulnerable people and for businesses that cannot lodge cash easily without it is more vital than ever, so I urge the Government to ensure that we play our part in the retention of post office services. We should remember that although a large number of people operate online for the majority of things, there is also a large vulnerable section of society who do not operate online and who are frightened to do so because of security concerns. Again, I seek the Minister’s reassurance in relation to this security issue. I will give him another example, which concerns one of my constituents, because I do not believe that the vulnerability of some elderly people to scams can be underlined enough.

Only last month, a man in my constituency lost a substantial amount of his savings because he was scammed through an online system. Many of our older people and other vulnerable people are increasingly refusing to try any online payments, just because they are not sure whether they have the security that they need so much. My parliamentary aide’s mother had a discussion with her private pension provider regarding the transfer of a bulk payment. Coincidentally, that afternoon she received a message on her phone, apparently from HMRC, regarding an outstanding tax bill. Let us be quite clear—HMRC does not make telephone calls to tell people about tax bills. If someone receives such a call or message, it is a scam, and that is a fact. Indeed, I received a phone call here at Parliament just before the recess, telling me to contact a particular number immediately in relation to something similar. I contacted my accountant and asked him about it, and he said, “Jim, HMRC do not contact you about any HMRC business by phone. They will contact you by letter. If you get a phone call supposedly from them, it’s a scam.” He was quite clear about that.

The mother of my parliamentary aide, Naomi, rang her, and Naomi told her mother to do nothing about the message until she had looked at it. It was a scam, but one timed in such a way as to be believable. Not everyone has a child who understands the tax system so well that they can spot a scam, which perhaps underlines the importance of this issue.

Fears about these issues make people’s ability to head to their local post office and have a local, friendly staff member help them to pay their bills safely and to get things sorted out vital. How important it is to have the accessibility to that service from someone an individual knows and who has a face they recall and trust—trust that has been built up over many years. I believe that every speaker today will endorse that.

The post office is vital. It is okay to have all the other shops and petrol stations where people have access to a post office service, but people also need to have someone they know. Post offices give that reassurance, so they are vital, and we must do our part to protect them. In doing so, we must protect our service provision, which is even more important for our elderly community, who rely on it and cannot do without it.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Finally, I call Kirsten Oswald to speak.

10:17

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

It is very kind of you to call me to speak, Mr Betts. Thank you. I was not down to speak in this debate—

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Oh, I am sorry.

[Kirsten Oswald]

—but I am very happy to speak and to wax lyrical about my local post offices. As you have called my name, Mr Betts, I ask for your indulgence to speak briefly.

This is an incredibly important topic, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for asking for this debate, and to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have this discussion. We often talk about post office closures in the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, which, as my hon. Friend said, is a wide-ranging APPG. That really speaks to the great significance of post offices in all our communities.

I do not want to labour points that others have made, but as a Member representing a constituency with a number of population centres, all with their own diverse needs and geographies, I know that the importance of post office services to my constituents cannot be overstated. I have constituents who live in rural areas where it may be difficult for them to get to a post office, and the closure of post offices in some of these outlying areas has created significant difficulty, particularly for elderly and vulnerable people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) raised the issue of the “stop-start” nature of post office services and the impact that has on communities. It has caused significant concern in Clarkston in my constituency, for example. We have a post office operating there now, which is very welcome, but it has been something of a movable feast over a number of years.

I mentioned that I had visited the post office in Barrhead. I will dwell on that briefly, because it was really fantastic to go out and meet the people working in the post office, and to see what they do day to day in terms of helping people and providing access to cash. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about constituents receiving real individual support from the people working in the post office, and I saw that for myself when I visited the post office in Barrhead, which is a great shop as well as a post office—if anyone is in the area, I absolutely recommend going along. That human contact and personal knowledge of customers was evident there. We cannot afford to lose that. Even in that big, thriving town, access to cash is an issue. We have many elderly and vulnerable residents, and we need the support that the Barrhead post office provides for our community.

I mentioned the support that Tariq Chishti provided from his post office, Netherlee Post & News, and I think it is telling and well deserved that he received an award for his work during lockdown. Many of our communities relied on the people who became focal points of their local area by going above and beyond what could ever be reasonably expected of them to ensure that people were okay in those difficult times. It is no surprise that post offices were at the centre of that. They are at the centre of our communities, and the functions that they provide are so very important. I am keen to hear from the Minister about the various actions that Members have asked for to try to secure the position of post offices, to ensure that they are sustainable, and to deal with issues overhanging from the Horizon scandal, which make it very difficult for people to see this as a sustainable business opportunity for them.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Member. I called her because she was on the list of people who had requested to speak.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I am delighted.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Always here to help!

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, although I must say that I miss seeing my friend Sir David Amess sitting in that chair, here in Westminster Hall. If the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is a season ticket holder for Westminster Hall, then I am an aspiring season ticket holder. Of course, another Member who was in here very often—if not in the chair, then on the Benches opposite—was Sir David.

As this is the first opportunity I have had, I place on record my sincerest condolences to Sir David’s wife Julia, to his children, and to his staff—particularly Gill, who worked for him and has been such a support to the all-party parliamentary group on fairs and showgrounds, which David led superbly. I know that we will all miss him enormously.

I also want to acknowledge and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for initiating this morning’s debate. She is a tireless campaigner for post offices, whose work has shown their importance to our local communities right across these islands.

[Marion Fellows]

I crave everyone’s indulgence; I lost the last five pages of my speech, but I really must use this opportunity to raise a couple of issues. A moratorium on the closure of Crown post offices, which was negotiated by the Communication Workers Union, is due to end next year. Will the Minister please confirm that it will continue? Will he also speak to other Departments within Government to find out what other services they can put into post offices, with charges that will help sub-postmasters’ remuneration?

[David Linden]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being so versatile as to ask questions to the Minister through me. I feel like the Cilla Black of Westminster Hall here in pulling people together, but she is right to place on record those questions to the Minister. I join her in paying tribute to the Communication Workers Union, which has campaigned tirelessly on Crown post offices. We very much reaffirm to the Minister the need to see more progress.

Over the course of this debate, we have had 11 contributions from Members in all four constituent parts of the UK. That in itself shows that this is not an issue that affects only Scottish MPs, but that there are wider issues around the sustainability of the post office network right across these islands. In my own consistency of Glasgow East, even in my short time as an MP we have seen the closure, both temporary and permanent, of post offices in Cranhill, Garthamlock, Tollcross and Parkhead. That is four post offices in the four years I have been here.

The closures have had far-reaching consequences for my constituents, and many have felt the absence of the postal services in their local area. Post offices provide essential services for local communities across these islands, from mailing and posting to accessing pensions and benefits. On the subject of benefits, the decision by the Department for Work and Pensions to move away from the Post Office card account is particularly damaging for the sustainability of post offices. As I have said many times before in the House, we must ensure that vulnerable people and particularly our older constituents still have access to cash. I will return to that point later.

Despite all the vital services they provide, post offices are routinely being shut down across these islands. In 2001, there were just over 1,900 post offices in Scotland; pre-pandemic, their number had dipped to 1,300, and we know there have been further casualties in the network since then. In August alone, my small urban constituency saw the closure of not one, but two post offices, in Garthamlock and Parkhead. Though there may be light at the end of the tunnel for residents in Parkhead, the broader picture suggests that local services in the east end are being decimated, with communities being abandoned as the post office network collapses like a pack of cards. Put simply, it leaves my constituents and I continually worrying about which post office will be the next to close. I have a lot of time for Mark Gibson at the Post Office, but every time I see his name in my inbox it spells out that yet another closure is coming.

As part of the campaign to save Garthamlock post office, I and a hard-working local councillor, Ruairi Kelly, met with CJ Lang & Son Ltd to better understand how the situation came about and continues to crop up. I also met with Calum Greenhow from the National Federation of SubPostmasters. I have raised this issue in the House before, but through my meetings it has become clear that Post Office Ltd struggles desperately to get sub-postmasters to take on branches and indeed keep them on. For many, it is an inescapable fact and a financial reality that branches are not economically viable, forcing them into the difficult decision of closing down. For operators such as CJ Lang, which at the end of the day is a private enterprise, that is a black and white commercial decision, which I understand from a very crude profit/loss perspective.

I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw who mentioned that in many cases, it is more profitable for CJ Lang to have a Subway store or a Costa machine. That highlights some of the major problems. Clearly, there are problems with the fundamental business model for post offices, which needs addressing. That is something that I and many other Members have raised with the British Government, but it appears thus far to have fallen on deaf ears. As we see post offices being closed, we risk inflicting huge and long-lasting damage on local communities, which rely heavily on post offices and the services they provide, particularly after banks have long taken flight.

The importance of post offices in providing access to cash is a particularly prevalent issue in my constituency in the east end of Glasgow. The consumer group Which? has recently undertaken research that identifies 259 communities from across the UK with poor cashpoint provision or no ATMs at all. The Federation of Small Businesses has reminded us that when an area loses cashpoints, it has real impacts on surrounding small businesses: sales fall as customers who want to pay with notes and coins are left in the lurch, and footfall drops as shoppers head to other areas with greater access to cash. The recent decision by Barclays to continue allowing customers to freely access cash at post offices was the right one.

We need to see continued support from banks for the post office network, not least because we know that banks, when—I was going to say when consulting, but actually more often when giving us notification of closures in our constituencies—often say to us, “Oh well, the Post Office can step in and backfill,” only for the post office network to be eroded further after that.

In the 2020 spending review, the Treasury announced £227 million worth of investment in the Post Office, including a subsidy of £50 million to protect customers’ access to essential services in commercially challenging locations. I question whether £227 million of funding is enough, but it is a step in the right direction. I hope the Minister can provide an update today—specifically on which locations have been deemed to be commercially challenging, how the money will be allocated and what the timescale will be. Given that I lost not one but two post offices in the space of the month this summer, I suggest the east end of Glasgow ticks the commercially challenging box without a doubt.

Thus far, the British Government are failing way short of meeting their responsibility to provide and uphold postal services in our communities. As a constituency MP, I am clear that the continued threat to post offices puts vulnerable and older constituents in Glasgow at grave risk of losing yet more vital services in an area that has already been hit extremely hard. To be blunt, Ministers in Whitehall must stop viewing post offices through a narrow commercial prism; instead, they must see them as pieces of vital community infrastructure that need protection and investment. I say to the Government very clearly that they cannot level up communities when shutters are being pulled down.

10:30

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I want to echo your tribute to our friend, Sir David Amess, who was tragically and horrifically murdered. As you said, he could well have been in the Chair for today’s debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, this is the kind of debate that Sir David would have truly appreciated. I am sure that there would have been a reason why post office closures showed that Southend needed to be a city, and I am so glad that that is to be realised. This is also the sort of debate that he would have appreciated because Members on all sides have conducted it with affability, civility and respect. I want also to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), not only for securing the debate but for the great cross-party work that her APPG does to support post offices.

As we have heard, for 361 years the Post Office has been at the heart of the community, and post offices have established themselves as the backbones of local economies across the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, the hon. Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), have spoken of the contribution that post offices make to our constituencies. The network provides over 170 essential services to 17 million customers and one third of small businesses each and every week.

More recently, the pandemic has highlighted how vital a reliable postal service is—I am sure that we all appreciated that during the pandemic. A survey by the National Federation of SubPostmasters found that 97% of post offices that remained open during lockdown did so to support their local communities. Sub-postmasters stepped up as key workers, not only keeping us connected but going above and beyond their job descriptions by offering services such as grocery deliveries for vulnerable customers. I thank them for their work during the pandemic, and also pay tribute to the CWU for its support and campaigning on post offices.

As this debate has shown, postal services matter to everyone, but customers and businesses in the most rural and vulnerable communities are paying the biggest price for closures. A 2015 freedom of information request revealed that, out of the 20 north-east branches marked as temporarily closed, 17 were closed for more than a year and seven for more than five years. To put that in context, the north-east has 499 open branches, already the lowest number in any UK region. Hon. Members have spoken of concerns about closures in their constituencies. In my own constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne Central, we have seen a number of closures, often in deprived areas such as Kenton, where I grew up. Other branches have moved into private sector operations, despite opposition from local MPs and residents. For example, the Gosforth high street post office was moved to a convenience store on a secluded residential street, without nearby bus stops or non-permit parking—a decision made with complete disregard for accessibility. We have heard from hon. Members of similar experiences in their constituencies. In 2019, the former Minister, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), stated to the BEIS Committee that it was a Government commitment to maintain the post office network at 11,500 branches. Does the Minister plan to uphold that commitment in our post-pandemic economy?

With only 1% of branches managed directly by the Post Office, many sub-postmasters are relying on the Government’s subsidy to remain financially viable. However, sub-postmasters are resigning at a faster rate than they can be replaced due to the difficulty in making a decent living. That has been a major driving force in the decline of the network. In 2019, the National Federation of SubPostmasters found that 76% of members were struggling to earn the national minimum hourly wage, resulting in an estimated 22% planning to downsize or close their post office in the coming year. What recent discussions has the Minister had with Post Office Ltd on the incomes of sub-postmasters, and what steps he is taking to minimise the risk of further closures?

During the pandemic, reduced footfall and post offices’ inability to access many coronavirus support packages saw many temporary closures become permanent. Between March and April 2020, the number of open branches fell by 651 from 11,638, and 388 of those closures were of outreach services in the most remote parts of the UK. In August, the BBC reported that 260 temporarily closed branches were still closed as of 30 June 2021. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the number of open branches returns to pre-pandemic levels?

The post office subsidy provides a fixed amount of remuneration to an estimated 5,000 post offices, including 1,600 outreach services operating from mobile vans and village halls on a part-time basis. But the Government have ignored the importance of the subsidy, which has decreased from £210 million in 2012-13 to £50 million in 2020-21. Two years ago, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood told a Select Committee that the Government would look to continue to support the post office network, sharing this responsibility with Post Office Ltd. Much has changed since this pre-pandemic statement. What assessment has the Minister made of the ongoing impact of covid on post offices, and how does he plan to fulfil that promise in the future?

Last year I welcomed the announcement of a £227 million investment, including a £50 million subsidy to support the rural post office network. However, the CWU rightly stated that it is unlikely that this investment will be sufficient given the amount the post office will have to raise to cover future legal claims associated with the Horizon scandal, which remains the greatest public scandal that our country has suffered, and the implications of which are still being felt by many current and former sub-postmasters who are struggling to gain the compensation the Minister seemed to promise. The more than 900 false prosecutions resulting from the Horizon scandal destroyed lives, families and reputations, and we have yet to see public confidence restored. Indeed, I do not believe that public confidence will be restored without justice for those whose lives were ruined. The Government must ensure that this justice does not come at the expense of our post office network’s survival. What steps is the Minister taking to maintain the financial viability of the Post Office, and will considerations be made for the continuation of the subsidy beyond 2022?

Finally, many Members have spoken about the importance of access to cash. It is worth noting that the subsidy I have spoken about is for the rural networks, but with 55 banks closing every month and up to 8 million people relying on cash daily, the impact of closures on access to cash in both rural communities and urban ones such as my own must be considered. The post office network provides financial services to individuals who are digitally excluded, are ineligible for a bank account, or use cashless services. In 2019, a report by LINK found that 47% of the UK population believes that losing that access to cash would present real challenges. Despite that, 10% of free-to-use ATMs were disconnected during the pandemic, further exacerbating the lack of access. Post offices have been left to pick up the slack, with recent figures suggesting that they will shortly exceed £3 billion a month in cash deposits and withdrawals for the first time in history, so I ask the Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of bank closures on the importance of the post office network, and what plans he has to ensure that banks offer support to post offices that take up their services.

As we have heard, post offices across the country offer more than commercial services: they are a source of social interaction for the vulnerable and lonely, a key touchpoint between people and Government services, and a vital part of local communities. The Post Office is a great British institution that has fulfilled a social purpose for centuries, but it is also an institution that the Government are failing to support. Managed decline is the story of our times under the Conservative Government. Labour is committed to protecting our post office network, and will fight to ensure that postmasters are given the support that is needed to guarantee that network’s survival. I hope the Minister will join us in that mission.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I ask the Minister to allow two minutes at the end for the mover to wind up.

10:41

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on having secured today’s debate, and on all the work that she and other Members do in the APPG on post offices. It is a very vibrant and diverse APPG, and I always enjoy speaking with its members and sharing thoughts with them.

I thank you, Mr Betts, and others for the tributes that have been paid to our friend and colleague Sir David Amess. In giving my tribute, I want to respond to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who talked about the Government’s social vision for the Post Office, because two of the three things in our vision really chime with what Sir David did and what he stood for. The main building blocks are to deliver a convenient and trusted local service offer that meets customers’ needs—working closely with postmasters, who play a hugely important role in their communities—and to ensure that the Post Office’s services continue to be easily accessible to all consumers, particularly the vulnerable groups that need them most. The third, which perhaps does not relate directly to Sir David but is so important for the Post Office, is to support the Government’s access to cash and financial inclusion agenda by ensuring that basic cash and banking services are available throughout the network to meet the needs of individual customers and small and medium enterprises. We have heard about the importance of those services throughout the debate.

The post office network is unique. With more than 11,500 branches, the Post Office is the biggest retail network in the UK: there are more post offices than bank branches and building societies combined. Thanks to Government funding, we have ensured that we have the most stable post office network in a generation, with 99% of the population living within three miles of their nearest branch. As I go through my speech, I will try to cover some of the issues that have been raised about the network, but over the past decade, while the country’s high streets have undergone a significant period of change, the number of post office branches has remained broadly stable. As we have been discussing, that business has continued, and must continue, to evolve to meet customer need. What has not changed, though, is how undeniably important post offices are to communities. Our local post offices have never been more important or more valued than in the past 19 months, as the country has faced the unprecedented challenges of responding to the pandemic.

[Jamie Stone]

Does the Minister accept that his point about 99% of the population living within three miles of their nearest branch does not apply to my constituency?

[Paul Scully]

I think the hon. Gentleman has a fair point. As I will try to develop a little, we need to do more to diversify and change the network to make sure it evolves, not only to use those mileage figures, but to make sure it meets demand and what is required by communities.

We wasted no time in March 2020 in announcing that post offices were an essential business and postmasters were key workers, so that post offices could stay open and provide the lifeline for businesses and customers everywhere that we have already heard about, and to enable loved ones to keep in touch at such a difficult time. Post offices have changed, because there is no Post Office without postmasters. While high streets grew quiet through the pandemic, postmasters across the UK went the extra mile to support their communities.

I was delighted to see Sara Barlow, the postmaster for Rainhill branch, and Luke Francis, postmaster for Bude branch, recognised in the recent Queen’s birthday honours for their services to local communities. Thanks to the tireless efforts of postmasters and their staff, those vital post office services continue to be available to communities across the country—an incredible 90% of the network remained open. I think there are many Saras and Lukes across the country who deserve our recognition.

However, the network was not immune to the challenges of the pandemic and branch numbers were clearly impacted. Some postmasters had to close their branches for health reasons, but other post offices were closed because of their location—for example, if they were in a university, community centre or library. The Post Office worked hard on a case by case basis to resolve any practical issues to keep as many post offices open as possible, but obviously it was not always possible.

I discussed the issues affecting the network on a regular basis with the Post Office’s chief executive, Nick Read, throughout the difficult time. His priority and that of the Post Office was, rightly, to protect vulnerable customers. The Post Office acted quickly to designate 1,000 branches as priority branches based on socio-economic criteria. These were branches that the Post Office considered would have the most detrimental impact on vulnerable customers should they close. That ensured that the Post Office’s efforts through the pandemic could be targeted. When any of those branches were forced to closed, the Post Office could implement a range of mitigations, including deploying mobile vans, the “post office in a box” kit and even redeploying trained staff from Post Office HQ itself. The Post Office also worked closely with Government to set up two cash delivery services, designed for self-isolating or shielding customers.

We have been monitoring the network situation very closely and working with the Post Office to understand further the impacts on postmasters and how we can support them throughout that period. Post offices were eligible to be awarded financial support through many of the Government’s measures to support business and were able to access other business support schemes, such as the VAT deferrals.

We also stepped in to put in place a temporary waiver for the requirement for the Post Office to provide those 11,500 branches. It was clear that despite postmasters and the Post Office doing everything they can to ensure services were available through the pandemic, it still was not possible to provide full network coverage. However, I am pleased to report that the waiver expired in June this year and that the post office network is above 11,500 again and with increased stability.

The pandemic helped to demonstrate what an incredible contribution post offices make to our communities. This confirmed, as we have heard, what we all know to be true. Many of us see first hand the impact that post offices have on our communities and how much constituents value their post office. That is widely backed by research, not just our own eyes and ears. The Association of Convenience Stores consistently finds that post offices are valued by customers and have a positive impact on the local area.

I fully appreciate and recognise the impact a post office closure can have on a community. I know it can be disruptive, particularly for those rural communities that do not have nearby alternatives, as we have heard. I can reassure hon. Members that we are confident that the post office network is stable and that the Government continue to be as fully committed as ever to ensure the long-term sustainability of the network.

However, it is inevitable that, with a network the size of the post office network, there will be variations, as we have heard, in the number of branches open at any one time. The post office network can and does fluctuate and change over that time, as postmasters move on, branches close, and new ones open. The Government’s access criteria ensure that however the network changes, services remain within local reach of all citizens. Churn in the network is part of the modern, dynamic, franchising business that the Post Office is.

A postmaster can resign for a number of reasons. They might be retiring, and the new business owner does not want to take on that post office. The postmaster might want to turn their shop back into a home. With partners who operate multiple post offices, businesses might make a commercial decision to resign from operating a post office. The reasons behind the post office closing might be varied, but I assure hon. Members that the Post Office’s response is tried and tested and it works. It requires operators to provide six months’ notice of a branch closure to allow it time to identify alternative ways to provide services.

We have talked about specific examples. That requirement applies to all franchising partners, whether it is a multiple retailer or an individual postmaster. Where notice is given, Post Office works hard with communities to make sure that the service is maintained. When it is not possible to open a full-time branch due to lack of retail premises in the local area, maintaining the service can include innovative solutions, such as mobile or outreach services. It is important that we make sure that those are temporary and that we look to more permanent, long-term solutions.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am listening very carefully to what the Minister says, but how does he explain the circumstances that I set out? I have just totted up in my head—I have half the number of branches open that the Post Office thinks should be open. I have six open, five temporarily closed and one that was due to open two years ago that never has. That is a system that is not working. I am sure I cannot be the only MP in this situation. How does he address the problem of temporary closures?

[Paul Scully]

Temporary closures do not feature in the network figures. The 11,500 does not include temporary closures—trading has to have taken place within that month to be included in those figures. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s position. This is part of the churn that I am talking about. He and I both represent city seats, where branches tend to be closer together and can be more easily lost compared with rural communities, where there is a massive, immediate hit that everybody notices. Whether it is in Hammersmith or Sutton, there is probably more fluidity and churn, but the services are no less important for the most vulnerable in our society and we need to work through that.

We are not blind to future challenge. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw and others have talked about the Horizon scandal. It is a scandal. The vast majority of comments today have been about the future of the network. We cannot fully address the future of the network without addressing the past. I am really pleased to be back in my place after the recent reshuffle because it gives me the opportunity to continue the work to make sure that everybody affected by the Horizon scandal gets justice and gets fully compensated, and that we can work towards that. It will take time. It will not happen as quickly as those who are badly affected will want, but I will make sure I redouble my efforts on this issue, through the statutory inquiry and our considerations around it.

Turning back to the future, the retail sector has clearly gone through a significant period of change, which covid has accelerated. Post Office is continuing to explore new business opportunities to ensure a thriving national network for the benefit of communities, businesses and postmasters up and down the country. As the e-commerce market continues to grow, accelerated by covid-19, it is expanding its pick-up and drop-off offering. In the last few months, it has signed click-and-collect deals with DPD and Amazon. A new partnership has been forged with Yoti, a global leader in digital identity services—that is a clear demonstration of the Post Office embracing new technologies. Alongside those new partners, it is strengthening existing relationships. A landmark deal with Royal Mail was agreed at the end of last year to solidify what has been a long and successful relationship.

Finally, Post Office continues to work to secure the third iteration of the banking framework agreement, a vital partnership with all of the main UK banks and building societies to provide free-to-use cash services for those that need them right across the UK. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) talked about the record amount of cash withdrawn from post offices in August. That is an opportunity for the Post Office, as it has more branches than banks and building societies put together. No bank wants to be the last bank in town—they want to be the second-last bank in town—because the pressure and the spotlight are put on them. Only too often, the post office is there to work through. The Post Office is continuing to innovate through its bank hub trials, which are shared retail spaces where high-street banks can hold appointments with their customers on specific days of the week, in addition to the usual post office banking services available either at the counter or in the new self-service machines.

The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw talked about Government contracts and about POca. It is for the Department for Work and Pensions specifically to work out who the contract is with. I speak to my colleagues there on a regular basis and I am due to speak to them and, indeed, to the chief executive about that. Yes, we look at what we can do for the Post Office, but clearly, we need to make sure that contracts are tendered on a commercial basis and deliver value for money, alongside that social purpose, through whoever provides the service.

A number of Members raised CJ Lang’s commercial decision to resign from operating 31 post offices. As with all post office closures, we regret the commercial decision and recognise the disruption that will cause to affected communities. I speak with the Post Office regularly about that because I know how concerning it is for our Scottish colleagues across the House and the communities they represent. The Post Office continues to make significant progress in finding the solutions to mitigate that customer impact and I understand that it is in discussions with both independent postmasters and various retail groups. The Government will continue to monitor the situation closely to ensure the access criteria continue to be met in the affected areas.

Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) talked about Haworth, and I will certainly take that away. I know that the petition he has raised has been heard. I assure those Members who are wondering whether the Post Office is listening that I will have a message for it about the debate when I get back. It is listening and will respond, but I will take that away and make sure my hon. Friend’s work standing up for his constituents is heard.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I cannot do justice to all the things they have raised, or I will be here way beyond time. To make one last point about postmasters’ remuneration, again, that is an operational matter for the Post Office, but we have to recognise the importance of supporting postmasters to give them the future we talked about. I was pleased to see that it listened carefully to the feedback it received on the proposed changes, and I welcome the recent improvements it announced last month. We will continue to monitor and work with the all-party parliamentary group and the Post Office to make sure postmasters feel they have that vibrant future. I thank hon. Members once again for their contributions. It is encouraging to see everybody come together to ensure that a vital national asset continues to serve our constituencies for many years to come.

10:58

[Marion Fellows]

I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. As ever, it has been cross-party and hon. Members have put passion and experience into their contributions, and I welcome that. I also welcome the Minister’s comments. He and I are old comrades in arms; he has visited the APPG and will be coming back soon, as will Nick Read and others, because this has to go forward. I am concerned that the Post Office has been put on a path of managed decline and that the Horizon scandal will affect that. We must not lose sight of Horizon. People deserve justice and just compensation but it cannot be at the expense of the network. It is vital that we recognise the work of people in post offices: sub-postmasters, Crown post offices and those independent retailers who do so much to enliven and help their local communities. I see that I am running out of time but this is important. I have written on behalf of the APPG to the Chancellor demanding that he give money to post offices so that they continue to be a vital part of our local communities and also help in town regeneration and levelling up.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the effect of post office closures on local communities.

Regenerative Farming and Climate Change

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regenerative farming and tackling climate change, restoring nature and producing nutritious food.

I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting me the opportunity to debate this issue. I also declare my interest as a Conservative Environment Network regenerative agriculture champion, whatever that means.

Farming is at a crossroads in the UK. This is a seminal moment, perhaps the greatest in 70 years, and it offers opportunities, challenges and the chance to rethink and reform our agricultural way of life in a manner that is harmonious to producing healthy, high-standard food, reaching our climate goals and enhancing biodiversity, and tackling rural issues.

To start, the method through which we subsidise and support our farmers is undergoing a complete revamp. The basic payment scheme, which rewarded farmers based on their landholding, is to be phased out and replaced by an entirely new scheme. This new Government proposal—the environmental land management scheme, known as ELMS—promises to be a fairer, more tailored subsidy initiative to help British farmers produce food at the same time as asking them to work increasingly at a landscape scale, to improve biodiversity, reduce air and water pollution, protect our landscapes from environmental hazards and adapt our agricultural ways in response to climate change.

ELMS is undeniably ambitious and what is wrong with that? At its core, it seeks to provide public money for public good. A combination of climate change and decades of intensive farming have had an impact on UK agriculture, land and environment. More frequent flood events, topsoil loss from erosion, pesticides and antibiotic resistance, and plateauing yields, despite higher inputs, are increasingly making farmers’ jobs even more financially challenging, incurring lasting damage to our shared environment. Agriculture accounts for 10% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, and it is in our interests to address that.

British farming faces a new subsidy scheme, the need to address climate change, the requirement to upskill and retrain, the need for standards to measure carbon sequestration, as well as having to ensure stability around food security. Those crossroads—that challenge—might well be described as a spaghetti junction. The complexity of what we must do is huge.

Over the past two years, since I was elected, I have been fortunate enough to spend a great deal of time with the farmers of Totnes and south Devon. In doing so, I have noted the manner, method and diverse ways in which many of them now farm. Some use the practices of the generations before them—a hyper-intensive farming regime, the “Dig for Britain” mentality, in which the land is worked and squeezed from every angle, for every nutrient, to produce food for a growing population through the use of chemicals and intensification, and where yields are a priority at all costs. Others have changed and adopted an organic farming model, where food is no longer produced at any cost, standards are raised, chemicals are reduced and, at the end, the product can display a label that denotes high quality, infallible welfare standards and, of course, a price to go with it—premium quality for those who can afford it.

It is perhaps worth remembering that there are 9.34 million hectares of agriculture landscape in the UK, of which only 489,000 are farmed organically. Then there are people who have long recognised and understood the need to return their land entirely to a more balanced and natural state of affairs—the rewilding brigade, whose efforts have been so neatly captured through the work of Isabella Tree and Charlie Burrell at Knepp. They have been returning land to its natural state and making space for nature to take over, which has captured the imagination of millions.

The wide spectrum of farming methods all have their own pros and cons, but the focus for the UK has now shifted towards working with nature. We must pluck what works from these methods and encourage their use through a new initiative. In recent years, a growing number of farmers have come to rethink their operations—quite literally from the ground up—by placing renewed emphasis on the few inches of earth beneath our feet, known as topsoil. In a healthy system, topsoil holds the nutrients, biodiversity and biological matter that allows life on Earth to thrive. It is no exaggeration to say that we owe our existence on this Earth to those few vital inches. For decades, however, we have been treating it like dirt.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He is making a very knowledgeable speech, and I support what he is saying. Does he agree that there needs to be a big cultural change in order to move away from consuming high quantities of low-nutritious food and towards consuming lower quantities of food that is more nutritious?

[Anthony Mangnall]

It is almost as though the hon. Gentleman has read my speech, because I will come on to these points. Yes, the issue is about improving the quality of the food that we produce from the soil that we use. We can meet so many of our targets on food security and environmental challenges, but also on the health of the nation, through the food that we produce.

The farms that we are talking about are rethinking their operations according to a set of principles known as regenerative agriculture. Simply put, regenerative agriculture involves producing food while restoring the land. It consists of the following five principles. First, soil should not be disturbed. Secondly, soil surface should be covered. Thirdly, living roots should be kept in the soil. Fourthly, a diversity of crops should be grown, and there should be an end to monoculture crops. Fifthly, grazing animals should be brought back on to the land through mob-stocking processes. Although those five principles are well known within the regen community, they are not so widely recognised within the farming community.

Such a method of farming moves away from the agrochemical model that relies on environmentally damaging and expensive chemicals. It provides a solution to improve biodiversity, carbon sequestration of soil and food production, to reduce inputs in costs and to create a symbiotic model that is sustainable, effective and necessary. By freeing the farmer from their dependence on the chemicals salesman, they are able to reduce their costs and take control of their finances. That becomes all the more prescient as the cushion of the basic payment scheme is reduced.

At this point, one might wonder: if it is such a fantastic method, why are all farmers across the world not upending their ploughs and moving to regenerative agriculture? Unfortunately, like many beneficial steps, it takes time. Regenerative agriculture marries old techniques with new technology. Although it is proving successful where practised, farmers are still required to take a leap of faith, both financially and educationally.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

We have so many fantastic farmers who are practising regenerative farming right across the UK, concentrating on improving soil health, biodiversity and water quality. I think of Jake Freestone, who was declared environmental champion farmer of the year at this year’s Farmers Weekly awards. I wonder whether we politicians could learn more from leaders such as Jake. Will my hon. Friend congratulate Jake?

[Anthony Mangnall]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I suspect that congratulations from the Minister might mean more, but I would like to congratulate Jake Freestone, because he is exactly the sort of person who we need to be co-operating with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and private organisations and helping people to learn and upskill—something that I will touch on in a second.

As I was saying, the enormous mind shift requires farmers to update and modernise their approach to farming, as well as including that financial risk. The challenge is great, but so too are the opportunities for DEFRA. The agriculture community and the private sector have a role to play. With a national initiative, they could have truly global results. For regenerative agriculture to make a difference, it needs to be supported and accepted by the Government, the private sector and the agricultural community. To achieve that, DEFRA has the opportunity to facilitate and enhance co-operation and understanding between farmers, to share practices, skills, machinery and understanding and, above all, to support farmers to do more for climate, nature and the environment. The sustainable farming incentive, part of the environmental land management scheme, which launches from 2022, will incentivise regenerative farmers to address the key points of soil and pest management. But the details at present remain somewhat opaque. Many in the agricultural community are still confused or in the dark about how the new ELM scheme will operate or practise.

Businesses that include farmers—of course, all farms are businesses—need certainty. The sooner we can be clearer about how public money for public good actually operates, the better. DEFRA through the ELM scheme is changing the method of support after 40 years. It is not about pitching farmers against one another, but instead bringing them together and using Government, private sector and farm bodies to provide the required support and action to adopt these regenerative farming principles. Perhaps a Jake Freestone policy could be adopted; we could use him as an example.

DEFRA, the Secretary of State and the farming Minister have constantly been clear about the need to listen to the agricultural community; now is our opportunity to do so. Agricultural initiatives are already underway that are leading the national debate, such as Groundswell, the Oxford Real Farming Conference and FarmED, but DEFRA needs to step up and lead to help translate those discussions into action and policy. We need a bottom-up approach that seeks to engage and co-operate and action that will ensure that regenerative agriculture leads to results that will benefit producers and consumers alike, including our environment.

My second point is about upskilling and training. Co-operation will play its part in delivering a new UK farming model fit for the 21st century. To get there, we must focus on how to change mindsets, update knowledge and offer training, retraining and upskilling courses. Much talk is made of the levelling-up agenda in this Parliament, and I can think of no better example of it landing and being effective than the Government being able to provide the necessary support for the agricultural community to update its practices. DEFRA funds have been and are available for agriculture charities that are focused on providing support to farmers.

I ask the Minister specifically about the steps that the Government are taking to encourage agricultural colleges and university courses to include soil health and regenerative practices. What opportunities are in place to help those already in farming to train, retrain or upskill? If we can go further, I encourage the Minister to do so, because within our educational bodies there is an enormous opportunity.

My third point is about the independent carbon assessment point. Healthier soils mean greater levels of carbon sequestration, meaning that the most effective carbon sink is not a man-made invention but the ground beneath our feet. However, measuring and verifying soil carbon is fantastically difficult and requires Government involvement. As a matter of urgency, DEFRA should be considering what the standards and requirements to measure soil carbon are. The technology might not have to come from Government, but the standards and the level that we wish to see can. We have committed 2.4% of GDP into research and development, and I suggest we stake our claim in this area before a myriad of straw men claiming to measure carbon sequestration are touted.

I understand that DEFRA’s natural environment investment readiness fund is proposing to develop and pilot a UK farm and soil carbon code to create a market for carbon offsetting. The technology to do so is being developed already by Agricarbon, as I understand it. With that in mind, how scalable is the technology to date? What steps is DEFRA taking to set a national carbon sequestration standard? What support are we providing for private and public sector bodies to help create the technology required?

I move on to my fourth and almost final point. Much has been written in recent weeks about food giants and commodity brokers dipping their toes into the regenerative field. Nestlé, Cargill, Walmart and Kellogg’s have been none too shy in promoting their regenerative agricultural efforts. As mentioned by the likes of Sustain’s Vicki Hird, we should be very wary of large private sector multinationals claiming great green credentials while other arms of their businesses continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. I am not ruling out their efforts, but unless Government can set the standards and tools of measurement, we will likely be lobbied and led into a position that is not of our own making and is not as beneficial to our farmers, who we want it to be beneficial for.

We need to explore and consider how we can bring the private sector with us and how it can help and support our agricultural community. There are already some fantastic initiatives taken by water companies to encourage environmentally friendly farming practices. For instance, Anglian Water’s “Slug it Out” campaign saw the removal of the chemical metaldehyde from water courses. That showed the positive impact that co-operation between farmers and private enterprise can have, and led to a dramatic decline in water pollution. Water companies are an example of what we can do by co-operating and ensuring that private enterprises can work together. Of course, cash grants to support the purchase of machinery and move away from deep ploughing, skills and training funding, and incentives to utilise fewer chemicals are just a few suggestions.

Finally, I ask the Minister: how can we encourage water companies and other businesses to take that step, co-operate with farmers and provide that support? What consideration has been given to creating a fair and accurate verification system around offsetting?

I have taken up far too much time. Farming is hard; one need only watch an episode of “Clarkson’s Farm” to recognise that. It requires long hours; it is dangerous work. All that is combined with the devastating prospect of not even breaking even without a subsidy. We want our farmers to be successful. We want them to be recognised for the vital role that they play as the stewards of our land, for the service that they provide in ensuring that good, high-quality food is produced in the UK, and as part of the answer to climate change and nature restoration. I welcome the changes announced by the Government, but we now have the opportunity and duty to do more for our farmers, to provide clarity, to help retrain, to support and judge private sector involvement, and to create the harmonisation in the agricultural community to provide the results that we need.

11:16

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing today’s debate. Indeed, it is good to see him on dry land. I have been following his exploits over recess on the trawler that left his constituency, and on which I am told he worked very hard. It is good that he survived that recent experience. I think that he learned a great deal from it, and I am looking forward to hearing all about that in due course.

I know from our many conversations that my hon. Friend is very passionate about regenerative farming as well as about his local fishing industry. He set out the challenges that are facing us at this crossroads of agricultural policy very thoughtfully—if rather quickly. It is true that there is a great deal to do. Part of the problem, which he identified, is that we have to do this at both a strategic level and a very practical and granular level, because that is what farming is all about.

We are introducing a new system that is tailored to the long-term interests of our farmers. As my hon. Friend said, this is the most significant change to farming and land management in 50 years. It is designed to move away from area-based payments or headage-based payments and to deliver a renewed agricultural sector. We are working with farmers at all stages of the design and development of this programme to ensure that it works for them in the future.

Very briefly, our programme is divided into three delivery systems at the moment. The sustainable farming incentive is being piloted actively at the moment, and those pilots are seeking to answer the specifics of many of the questions identified by my hon. Friend. Local nature recovery strategies are all about collaborative working across clusters or groups of farms, perhaps within a geographical area and perhaps to sustain a specific form of biodiversity or a geographical monument that we are trying to protect. We have learned a great deal about how co-working can help with nature recovery. Finally, there are the landscape recovery schemes, which my hon. Friend touched on.

Taken together, these schemes will provide our main delivery mechanism for projects that we hope will mitigate the impacts of climate change, support nature recovery and biodiversity, which is very important to our future plans, and, very importantly, support sustainable farming and the production of food, which is of course what our farmers do.

It is exciting and it is challenging; it is a seven-year transition during which we will work very hard with industry to make sure that we get it right. This is not a normal way of making policy; we are setting ourselves up to fail in some respects, and changing things as we go along—both of which give the civil servant in me pause for reflection. However, I think collaborative working with people such as Jake Freestone—who I am very pleased and proud to congratulate—is the right way to go. I always enjoy reading about the Farmer’s Weekly champions in all sectors, and he is a really great example of what is being done at the moment. We should not forget that a lot of farming is regenerative; I think my hon. Friend’s future relations are great proponents of regenerative farming, in a way that has been happening for many years in many parts of the country. It is important that we bank what is good and learn from it, as well as trying to encourage the great mass of us who farm into these regenerative techniques.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Is the Minister not slightly concerned with the policy we are seeing in trade negotiations with countries from around the world? We are doing deals with countries that have farming systems that seem to be the polar opposite of the vision set out by the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), and of what the Minister is arguing for now. Is it not a problem that, if we are pursuing a trade policy of that nature, it completely undermines what we are trying to achieve domestically?

[Victoria Prentis]

I am very keen to promote the consumption of British food and drink wherever possible. I was delighted to go to Wales to look at the first geographical indication awarded under our new domestic system, which, I am proud to say, is in the Gower with salt marsh lamb. While it is right, as the hon. Gentleman states, that we have an ambitious trade policy, we need to do everything we can to make sure that truly sustainable food in the country is as local as possible, frankly.

It is worth briefly touching on the way in which our new schemes will support a series of regenerative techniques. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes mentioned topsoil regeneration. I am particularly excited by the use of winter cover crops: fast-growing plants such as buckwheat, fodder radish or rye, which are established very soon after the harvest and create a green, living cover for the soil. We know now that these techniques reduce soil erosion risks and prevent nutrients from being washed out of the soil. We know that they really improve the living roots within the soil and soil microbiology, which is very much promoted within our new schemes. Integrated pest management—for example, growing flower-rich areas alongside or within arable crops to attract predators for pests—is not pie in the sky; these are real techniques that are being used on real productive farms at the moment. We are doing everything we can to promote that.

We have very exciting examples of general mixed agriculture coming through, such as cultivating crops alongside rearing livestock to fertilise the soil. As a former oilseed rape grower, I am particularly excited by the new learning we have about the winter grazing of sheep, and what that does for pest management. My hon. Friend has heard me enthuse about herbal leys in the past. I feel that these are good, basic techniques that, while old fashioned in some cases, with new technology can really help the way our soil structures work in the future.

We know that we need to refocus to tackle the environmental challenges that are facing us, both on climate change and on biodiversity. We have the opportunity to show the world how this can work. Yes, it is frightening. Yes, it is an experiment. However, we will and can work with industry, slowly, until it works properly.

I like the phrase “spaghetti junction”; it took me straight to Clarkson’s farm, which I had the privilege of visiting just before the recess. Jeremy Clarkson showed me some extremely impressive durum wheat, used for making spaghetti, which he was growing on his farm.

I do think that that programme has been useful in explaining to the general public quite how complicated farming is. It has shown how we, as DEFRA, farmers and, indeed, the general public have to balance all the competing claims on a minute-by-minute basis as we make decisions about how we grow things and what we grow.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) for his review of land-based colleges. He is reporting to the Department for Education, but has kept me closely involved. I also mention in passing the Institute for Agriculture and Horticulture. We are about to launch it formally, and a great deal of work has been going on to get it all organised. Upskilling and training are very much part of this brave new farming world.

We will set out our policy on new entrants formally at some point this winter. We have talked about how we will encourage those who want to retire from the industry to retire. We need to ensure that new entrants can put regenerative practices at the heart of all they do.

I will close with a piece of breaking news. It may not sound exciting to the general public, but for those of us who are involved in regenerative agriculture it is right up there. We laid a written ministerial statement at 9.30 today on the soil health action plan. It will include details on the development of healthy soil indicators and a proper methodology for soil structure monitoring, as well as setting out the basics of a soil health monitoring scheme. Some of the future farming policy pilots have been working on the details of that, and I am pleased that we have got as far as the WMS today.

In summary, I am grateful for this useful debate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes for his interest in this area.

11:26

[Anthony Mangnall]

If I may, I will add a few concluding comments. I thank those who have taken part by intervening on me and the Minister. I also thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer to my rather long list of questions, for which I apologise. I think I did share some of the questions ahead of time. It is nice to be back on firm ground after my two days with the Brixham trawlers.

The Minister is absolutely right: when we can marry old techniques with new technology, we have the potential to turbocharge—as the Prime Minister might say—our farming methods and ensure that we continue to produce high-class agricultural produce in this country.

As I sit on the International Trade Committee, I would just say that we have the highest standards in the world. It is, of course, incredibly difficult to do a trade deal with any other country when our standards sit at the very top, but there is an expectation that British produce will be able to reach the shelves of our friends in New Zealand, Australia and Singapore, because it is a sought after product. I hope to scrutinise those trade deals further in Parliament so that we can have more debates about food security and about how we are exporting, as well as how we are importing. I do not know whether that provides any reassurance to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), but I am trying.

It is fantastic to hear about the ministerial statement on soil health. As any good agronomist knows, good soil health is measured by the quantity of worms, so I look forward to going out with my shovel, along with the Minister, to count worms and see how this policy has had an impact.

There are big challenges and huge opportunities here. All I will say is that the Minister has a strong reputation for engaging with and listening to the different groups in Parliament and outside. I hope that she will continue to do so and hear us out.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action: Iran

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes in the Chair]

10:29

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I encourage hon. Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering or leaving the room.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Iran’s compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes? I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am grateful for having secured the time for this important debate, which is timely given Iran’s escalating nuclear violations and the continuing uncertainty around negotiations on the JCPOA nuclear deal. This is one of the most serious and most pressing foreign policy challenges of our time.

Before I get into those arguments I would like to take a moment to recognise the contribution to this Chamber made by our dear friend Sir David Amess. As we heard yesterday, Sir David never missed an opportunity to use whatever debating opportunities were available to press Ministers on the causes and issues that were close to his heart. He certainly used Westminster Hall to its fullest. As a member of the Panel of Speakers, he chaired many of the debates that took place here. I know that colleagues will miss seeing him in the chair, masterfully overseeing proceedings in a way that one can only do with 40 years of service under their belt.

There is every chance that Sir David would have sought to speak today. Last December, I had the pleasure of following him in a debate on this very subject. As ever, he spoke with great authority about Iran, his hopes for real, positive change in that country, and its need for true democratic revival. In his own words,

“I am now, unfortunately, in my fourth decade of saying negative things about the Iranian regime; it would be good to still be here in Parliament when I can say something positive about it.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 431WH.]

How sad and how tragic that he is not here to contribute today, and that he will not be able to say something positive about the country that he knew very well and loved. As a man of faith and strong conviction, a man who loved history, he had a deep interest in and affection for the wider middle east. He demonstrated that being a friend of Israel is no barrier to being a friend of Arab nations, too. In many ways, he was an embodiment of the Abraham accords long before they were signed.

Just a few weeks ago, Sir David tried to bend my arm into joining his delegation to Qatar. He knew of my interest in and desire to visit that country, and we both spoke in a debate on UK-Qatar relations a year ago. Unfortunately, constituency activities meant that I could not go, but I knew that travelling with Sir David would have been a very enjoyable experience. He was on the delegation on my first visit to Israel with the Conservative Friends of Israel, and I can say from first-hand knowledge just what a wonderful, funny, kind and generous travelling companion he could be.

Sir David was clear-sighted about the true nature of the Iranian regime and its malign influence throughout the middle east. In his speech last year, he spoke about Iranian terror activities in the region and here in Europe, and he warned of Iran’s ballistic missile programme and uranium enrichment activity. When it came to Iran, Sir David was simply someone who got it. Yes, he was hopeful, and almost romantically he longed for positive change for the Iranian people, but make no mistake: he was hard-head and clear-sighted about the immediate threats and challenges posed by Iran, and the need for strong countermeasures. That is very much my theme for this afternoon as we return to the subject of Iran’s compliance with JCPOA.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on sponsoring this important debate. Does he agree with me that if our colleague’s concerns were correct then—they certainly were—they would be even greater now, since a difficult Government in Tehran have been replaced by a Government who are simply beyond the pale in their principlist agenda, and in their view, as articulated by President Raisi, that sanctions are an opportunity for Iran, rather than something to be feared? Does my right hon. Friend fear, as I do, that dealing with a man who deservedly has the title of the “Butcher of Tehran” is going to be murderously difficult, notwithstanding the fact that the Biden Administration are far more positive than their predecessors when it comes to advancing the JCPOA?

[Stephen Crabb]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is entirely correct. The truth is that the situation has moved on at some pace in the 10 months since we last debated this subject, which is why it is so timely to bring it back to the House this afternoon. It is an uncomfortable truth that Iran can now be described as a threshold nuclear weapons state. The regime is enriching uranium to greater purities than ever before; it is in retention of ballistic missiles that can deliver nuclear and conventional payloads; and it continues to impede the International Atomic Energy Agency’s access to sites, personnel, and even monitoring equipment and data. The director general of the IAEA has spoken about this very subject today. That has far-reaching and serious consequences for UK foreign policy, for our national interests and for international peace and security. Given Iran’s well-documented systematic non-compliance with JCPOA, it is unsurprising that there is widespread apprehension about the future of the nuclear deal. Make no mistake, the reason that talks have stalled is that Tehran prefers to build more leverage through its nuclear violations.

While much of the focus of commentators on the JCPOA talks in Vienna has been on the intentions of the Biden Administration and the actions of Tehran, questions need to be asked now about whether the JCPOA is even capable of addressing the realities of Iran’s nuclear programme in 2021. Accordingly, I believe it is essential that the UK works with international partners to utilise the remaining diplomatic levers available to curtail Tehran’s nuclear belligerence before the situation deteriorates even further.

Aside from Iran’s continuing nuclear violations over the past year, it is worth pointing out that Iran has also engaged in a shadow bombing campaign against oil tankers navigating international waters, with one such attack involving the killing of a British national. Iran and its network of Shi’ite ally militia groups have routinely attacked military personnel in Iraq with dozens of drone and missile strikes, again killing a UK serviceperson. Iran has plotted the kidnap of foreign nationals and continues to hold British citizens and dual nationals hostage. An Iranian diplomat was sentenced in February for his involvement in a bomb plot against an Iranian opposition rally in Paris, which was attended by a number of our colleagues from this place, including Sir David Amess. Mercifully, that attack was foiled just in time.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the original purpose of the nuclear agreement that the west made with Iran was that it would reduce Iranian terrorism around the world and ensure that Iran moved towards becoming a democratic state? We were told at the time that those would be the beneficial effects of the agreement, but none of those things has happened. In fact, terrorism, particularly around the middle east, has got worse, funded and sponsored by Iran.

[Stephen Crabb]

My right hon. Friend is correct. The JCPOA has done nothing to dissuade the Iranian regime from conducting those wider activities in the middle east, undermining democratic states and the social and economic order of countries in the region, and sponsoring proxies. Last week, the scenes of street battles that we saw in Beirut raised the distressing possibility of a much-feared civil war in Lebanon. That should serve as a reminder of revolutionary Iran’s legacy. Wherever Iran exerts influence, it destroys the viability of the fragile but sovereign nation states that it preys on by fanning the flames of ethnic, sectarian and political division within each society for its own gain.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. When we talk about destabilising nations, we always think of China and Russia, but Iran, especially in the middle east, plays a fundamental part in failing the peace process, whether through Hezbollah or Hamas. We should proscribe every single group linked with the revolutionary guard, including the political wing of Hamas.

[Stephen Crabb]

Unsurprisingly, I agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks. Wherever Iran seeks to operate and influence, it creates roadblocks to peace and long-term prosperity for peoples throughout the middle east.

Against that backdrop, Tehran has also spent the last year systematically and aggressively advancing its nuclear activities. Iran’s nuclear programme is now deep into uncharted territory, and its new hard-line Government have thus far shown no inclination or intention to stop. That represents a comprehensive breach not only of the JCPOA but of safeguards obligations, as well as the non-proliferation treaty. Iran is openly enriching uranium to 60% purity for the first time ever, meaning that it is just a short jump to the level required for a nuclear weapon and a world away from the 3.67% permitted under the JCPOA.

Iran has installed advanced centrifuges, capable of enriching uranium at greater purity levels and in greater quantities, including at its controversial underground nuclear facilities. Iran now has stockpiles of enriched uranium far in excess of the limited amount permitted by JCPOA. The IAEA has confirmed that Iran has produced hundreds of grams of uranium metal, which is a significant component of nuclear weapons and has no credible civilian application. Iran has also repeatedly stonewalled the efforts of the IAEA to monitor its nuclear activities and investigate worrying discoveries of nuclear materials at previously undeclared sites. Many of those advancements are irreversible. The international community may yet—I believe it is unlikely—reach agreement with Iran to remove some stockpiles of enriched uranium out of the country. However, the technical knowledge, the know-how and the advancements cannot be rolled back and those are the very building blocks of a weaponised nuclear programme.

[Dr Murrison]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous and is right to say that technical understanding and knowledge cannot be unpicked. That, in a sense, is more important than the quantum of enriched uranium. Does he agree with me that Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid are right to be deeply concerned about what is going on? I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees with me that the state of Israel has to be protected against an existential threat from what is happening in Iran.

[Stephen Crabb]

My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the position of Israel and the fears and concerns within Israel. However, it is not just Israel; numerous other countries throughout the region live in fear of an Iranian regime armed with nuclear weapons.

It is a view widely held in security and academic circles that Iran’s breakout time—the time required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear weapon—may now be as little as several months. Some analysts are even talking in terms of a matter of weeks. That is an alarming decrease from the estimated 12 months’ breakout time that was at the heart of the JCPOA in 2015. By extension, a return to the JCPOA would not represent a return to the JCPOA of 2015. The situation has fundamentally changed for the worse and there is a new baseline.

I recognise that the ongoing negotiations will make it difficult for the Minister to touch upon specifics, but I encourage him to ensure that the UK considers the implementation of supplementary nuclear restrictions by the UK, our E3 partners and the US to compensate for the reduction in Iran’s nuclear breakout time. I particularly hope that restrictions such as the destruction of advanced centrifuges or components and a moratorium on centrifuge R&D and production are under consideration. The IAEA still has an essential role to play in the enforcement of the restrictions. Accordingly, I urge the Minister to ensure that the IAEA continues to have the UK’s full support and that it is empowered to finally verify the full extent of Iranian activities, both declared and otherwise.

I feel the international community keeps missing opportunities to hold Iran accountable. I believe that the Biden Administration have miscalculated by choosing to ease political and economic pressure on the Iranian regime, and that the expectation that doing so will lead to Iran renegotiating a stronger and longer JCPOA is misguided. I understand Iranian officials have already flatly rejected the idea. Conversely, the deliberate failure to meaningfully respond to Iranian non-compliance has led the country to commit ever greater acts of defiance and escalation. It seems that the collective failure to reprimand Iran for each acceleration of its nuclear programme simply underwrites its next transgression.

I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments this month about working

“night and day with our friends and allies across the world to stop”

Iran from becoming a nuclear power. That is unmistakably an important commitment. I have said that the UK needs to be clear-sighted about its policy towards Iran. I have also reflected that the belief shared by some in Government back in 2015 that the JCPOA and our re-establishment of diplomatic ties with Iran would lead to rapprochement was not well founded. The regime has long since stopped warranting the benefit of the doubt. The Iranian Government have a consistent track record of banking any concessions they are given and using whatever means are at their disposal to push for more concessions, while never really altering the fundamental trajectory of their foreign policy and military goals.

I have heard it said—in fact, I read it in an article just last month by a former UK diplomat—that Iran is effectively posturing to secure maximum economic and diplomatic concessions, and that actually it has limited interest in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. I regard such views as dangerously naïve, reflecting a long-standing desire on the part of some in western diplomatic circles to keep giving Iran the benefit of the doubt. There is a misguided and dangerous notion that if we keep showing more love and give more concessions to Iran, that will trigger a fundamental change of posture in Tehran, and it will emerge as a responsible member of the international community. I fear that Iran is continuing to play the international community like a fiddle.

As I listened to the Foreign Secretary’s recent remarks about Iran and the need for a network of liberty, I could not help but think that now—[Interruption.]

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Order.

14:46

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:07

On resuming—

[Stephen Crabb]

I do not wish to take up too much of the time left for this debate, as I would like other colleagues to have a chance to speak. I have taken a considerable amount of time to set out some of my arguments and concerns around the strategy that Iran appears to be pursuing.

I spoke of my encouragement from comments made by the new Foreign Secretary. I spoke about the importance of being clear-sighted about Iran and my concerns that the international community is at risk of being played by the Iranian regime, who constantly seek further concessions. They bank them and fundamentally do not alter their trajectory in any meaningful way when it comes to their military and foreign policy goals.

I will close my contribution with an appeal to the Minister, who I know has been listening very carefully. He was in the debate that we held in this Chamber 10 months ago on the same subject, and he is intimately knowledgeable of the details of the subject matter. We have a key moment coming up towards the end of next month with the board of governors of the IAEA meeting in Vienna. The option of censuring Iran for its continuing violations of the JCPOA is, I think, an option diplomatically that we need to keep in play. I do not expect the Minister to comment fully on that, but I ask that he listen, because we need to show as an alliance of freedom-loving nations that we continue to consider the full range of options in response to Iran’s strategy—diplomatically, economically and, yes, ultimately militarily, but that is not a subject for this afternoon.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

I can see that a good number of Back Benchers are wishing to contribute, so I will not put you on a formal time limit yet, but please be considerate of fellow speakers.

15:09

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. The objectives of the JCPOA are obviously hugely important in and of themselves, but it cannot just be seen through the lens of Iran’s nuclear capability, as it is in many ways a proxy for our wider relationship with Iran and the way that western countries engage with it. Developments around the deal can often have unintended consequences for other UK interests, and I want to talk about the unfortunate links between the JCPOA and Iran’s hostage taking, especially the high-profile detention of my constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

Before I get to the bulk of my argument, I want to pay tribute to Sir David Amess, who always supported me in my campaign for Nazanin’s release. Despite us being from different political parties, he would always ask me about her, lend me support and put pressure on the Government to ensure that she was released. I was especially grateful that Sir David went to visit Nazanin’s husband, Richard Ratcliffe, when he was on hunger strike outside the Iranian embassy, and spent an enormous amount of time with him. Sir David did not have to go the extra mile, but he did. I am very grateful that he showed me that support.

I start my argument by condemning in the strongest possible terms the behaviour of the Iranian Government in jailing Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe for crimes that she did not commit. There can be no excuse whatsoever for jailing an innocent woman, depriving her of her child and separating her from her family in London. When I met with the Prime Minister and Richard Ratcliffe, the Prime Minister said to me that he would leave no stone unturned in making sure that my constituent was brought home. Despite all of these words, Nazanin is still being held in jail and put through hell, having spent over 2,000 days in detention. Other British citizens, including Anousheh Ashouri, have been taken hostage since Nazanin was captured.

It is very difficult for me as a constituency MP constantly to explain to Richard Ratcliffe why his wife has not been released and why our Government have not managed to release her, when he points to other countries, like Australia and the US, that have had much more success in securing the release of their citizens. It is something for which I constantly have to answer, and for which I do not really have a proper answer.

If we are to stand any chance of bringing Nazanin back to West Hampstead, back to her home, in the near future, we have to understand the motives behind Iran’s hostage taking, as unjustified as they are. The JCPOA and the sanctions it concerns are hugely important in determining Iran’s approach to foreign policy with the west. I am afraid that the JCPOA process has not helped Nazanin at all. Her husband, Richard, who has—I am sure that everyone in this House will agree—fought fearlessly for her freedom, argues that the way the process has been handled has compromised his ability to fight for Nazanin’s release by encouraging Iran to look for leverage in the negotiations.

No effort appears to have been made to use the JCPOA process to secure an end to hostage diplomacy, and there has not been a robust enough response from our Government to British citizens like Nazanin being taken as leverage. At the same time as an Iranian presidential candidate explicitly and publicly proposes, in a TV debate, an expansion of hostage diplomacy to gain leverage over the west, members of our Government are still refusing to state that Nazanin is a hostage.

We saw the latest manifestation of the political game that Nazanin is caught up in this weekend, when she was told the devastating news that her new one-year sentence and one-year travel ban, on yet more trumped-up charges, has been upheld in court. She is now waiting anxiously for a call to say that she even has to return to prison, where she has been for the last five years.

When it comes to Nazanin’s case, the biggest factor in this awful game is the historic £400 million debt that we as a country owe Iran. She has been told repeatedly by Iranian officials that that is the reason for her imprisonment, and Iranian leaders have all but confirmed that to be true. Over the last five years, I have dealt with countless Foreign Secretaries and countless Foreign Ministers who have repeatedly refused to acknowledge the link between our failure to pay that debt and Nazanin’s imprisonment. That is the reality of the situation. I really hope that the Ministers involved will recognise the link, because otherwise we will not bring Nazanin home.

I am very grateful to the new Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), because she seems to have put Nazanin’s case at the top of her agenda and has already made an effort to contact me about it. I cannot express how grateful I am to have received a call and talked through the case, because unless we all work together, my constituent is not coming home anytime soon.

Clearly, we need a new approach. As hon. Members might imagine, I could talk about this subject forever, but I will not because time is short. We need a credible strategy to deal with Iran’s hostage taking. I want to ask the Minister a few questions. First, will the UK Government recognise Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe as a hostage of the Iranian state? Secondly, will the Government punish the perpetrators of this hostage taking, which they could do by placing Magnitsky sanctions on those involved, using Nazanin’s diplomatic protection status that we gave her to challenge Iran at the International Court of Justice? Thirdly, will we keep the promise to settle the UK’s debt to Iran? That is key to my constituent’s release. Fourthly, will we secure a commitment to end hostage taking in the JCPOA negotiations, to stop Nazanin and other hostages being used as tools?

How many more innocent British citizens does Iran have to imprison before our Government start to call out the hostage taking for what it is and take action in response? How many more years does my constituent have to be imprisoned before we change how we deal with Iran, including over the JCPOA, and pay the debt that we owe them? Things are getting more dangerous for British citizens, not less. I am afraid that our approach to foreign policy on Iran has exacerbated the risk. I urge the Minister to rethink. I know he knows the case well; he has spoken with me about it many times. Unless we have a robust challenge of hostage taking and stronger action, my constituent will not be coming home.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Order. I would like to call the first Front-Bench speaker at 3.49, so it would be helpful if Members could keep their remarks to about four minutes.

15:16

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who has a close interest in these matters, given the plight of her constituent.

Before the JCPOA, the international community had built up one of the most extensive arrays of sanctions against Iran ever imposed on any country, ever. That pressure brought the Iranian regime to the table. While some of those sanctions remain in place, many were lifted the moment the nuclear deal came into operation. That gave a significant boost to Iran’s oppressive theocratic regime and to its enforcers, the Iranian revolutionary guard. It meant even more money to fund its violent proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza, Yemen and Syria, and left it free to pursue its genocidal intentions towards Israel, which its supreme leader is clear he wants to destroy utterly. Yet, as we have heard, the deal did not include Iran’s ballistic missile programme, its international sponsorship of terrorism or its shocking abuse of human rights. No wonder the Prime Minister called it a “bad deal”.

In August, the E3 coalition of the UK, France and Germany confirmed that Iran is in flagrant breach of its obligations, taking what it described as

“key steps in the development of a nuclear weapon”.

Its statement was clear that Iran has

“no credible civilian need”

for the measures it has taken. What more belligerent violations are needed before the international community wakes up and snaps back those sanctions that have been lifted? I would appeal to the Minister, please, not to reward Iran for breaking its promises and for stepping up its rush to nuclear weapons. I appeal to him to accept that trying to revive this deal in its current form amounts to appeasement. It pains me to use such a loaded term, but that is what we are talking about.

The last time we debated Iran in this Chamber, our late colleague Sir David Amess expressed his regret that he was in his fourth decade of criticising the Iranian regime. For those many years, he campaigned bravely and forthrightly for a free and democratic Iran. All of us involved in the cause will miss him greatly. On this issue, as on so many others, he called it like it is. Time and again he denounced the appalling human rights record of the mullahs’ regime. Hundreds died in the November 2019 protests, when savage reprisals were meted out to peaceful protesters. Hostage taking leaves dual nationals trapped in Iranian jails for years on end. Journalists, bloggers and opposition activists are subject to intimidation and arbitrary detention. Women are deprived of basic freedoms and members of the LGBT community can face the death penalty just because of who they are.

Let us stop the pretence that the JCPOA can still be made to work. It is fatally flawed. It was always far too weak in what it asked Iran to do. All sanctions should be reimposed with Magnitsky measures applied against regime leaders, including those involved in the mass killings of 1988. It is time to stop appeasing this pariah regime and instead apply all the pressure that we can to ensure its economic isolation, so that we have a chance of delivering a deal that has a real impact, constraining its malign and brutal activities both at home in Iran and around the region.

15:20

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing this excellent debate. It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about Sir David Amess, who I worked closely with on Iran. I miss him, too, and I am reminded of the wisdom and eloquence that he would bring to a debate such as this.

I have always been sceptical about the JCPOA because I feared that the Iranian regime could not be trusted to comply. Reluctantly, I came to accept the view that at its best it might buy a decade in which we could hope to slow Iran’s potential for developing a nuclear weapon, while the search for a better political alignment across the middle east could be pursued.

I am not sure about the wisdom of the Trump presidency’s decision to withdraw from the deal unilaterally, but I do think there were already many questions at that time about Iran’s compliance. The deal, as we have heard, involved a 15-year period over which it said it would reduce its stockpile of uranium and limit its work on centrifuges. We now know that by May 2019, and probably earlier, it had decided to lift the limits on its stockpile of enriched uranium, and that by September 2019, and probably earlier, it had also decided to lift limits on the research and development of centrifuges. By August of this year the IAEA was able to verify that Iran has produced enough enriched uranium metal for some to believe a bomb is imminent.

We are now in a position where Iran says it wants to resume talks on the JCPOA, but appears to be doing everything it can to prevent any real progress while continuing its nuclear weapons programme. Since the summer of this year we have also witnessed, as we heard earlier, the coming to power of Ebrahim Raisi, the mass murderer behind the massacre of political opponents and many others back in 1988 who refused to accept the regime’s extremism. It seems almost certain that he has lost none of his ambition to purify Iran of internal dissent and bolster the position of the IRGC, the brutal and sinister Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

We know Iran is tempted back into talks because of the dire state of its economy and the fear of the impact of further sanctions. We must not give too much too soon and we should be wary of the advantage of a new JCPOA that once again fails to tackle the role of Iran in producing ballistic missiles, and fails to address the regional threats resulting from its arming of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis in Yemen.

There will also come a point where any gains from the JCPOA will become meaningless if Iran’s research and development passes the threshold beyond which the original agreement was designed to hold it. I do not say that our Government should not continue to work towards a new agreement, but I hope we will make it clear that it does not exclude international bodies from pursuing Raisi for his crimes against humanity, and it must be clear this time that the regime’s enrichment programme must be stopped completely and its nuclear sites closed. There must be verifiable inspections anytime, anywhere. It must also address regional activities and ballistic missiles, and it cannot ignore the behaviour of Iran when it comes to democracy, human rights or hostage taking, like Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. It cannot ignore the regime’s view that Israel does not have a right to exist.

Our Government should not agree to any conditions that seek to protect the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which I believe should be proscribed in its entirety under our terrorist legislation, as previously recommended by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.

15:26

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing this important and timely debate.

Listening to some of the contributions, I was reminded of my time on board HMS Kent in 2009. When we sailed through the Strait of Hormuz, there was the ominous sight of two Iranian vessels, shadowing us and watching us every step of the way from the opening of the strait up and into Bahrain, out of which we were based. This was at the time of the green revolution, which people might remember, when there was a brief flicker of hope that a better future for Iran might be achievable. Government supporters were burning Union flags and the stars and stripes, and castigating the west for involving itself in internal Iranian affairs, which, of course, it was not doing. The movement was a sign that the Iranian people wanted a better future for themselves and their country.

Sadly, the Iran of today is about as far removed from a better future and from those days as it is possible to get. One need look no further than the supreme leader installing Raisi as President, as has already been spoken about—a man who started his political career in the regime’s mass murder of political opponents back in the 1980s. Not only is Raisi subject to sanctions, but 12 individuals in his Cabinet are sanctioned, which is the highest number ever in the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Following the signing of the JCPOA, Tehran was welcome to take a different choice. It could have taken the hand of prosperity, stood up for itself and fostered itself into the family of peaceful nations, but its commitment to destabilising the middle east is absolute. Not only do we and our allies suffer for it, but the Iranian people, who we have spoken about today, are worse off for it.

At the nexus of Iran’s regional destabilisation sits the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The UK Government have already underlined the threat that the IRGC poses not only to the region but to countries such as our own. The UK Treasury lists the IRGC and its infamous Quds force, as being subject to UK terrorism and terrorist financing sanctions. Although that is welcome, I believe it is time that the UK followed the United States of America in proscribing the IRGC. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to follow that up with his colleagues in the Home Office.

Sanctions work. We see that around the world, and history tells us that they work. After all, Iran’s decision to enter the JCPOA in the first place was the direct result of an unprecedented framework of sanctions imposed by the UK and other allied nations. The Biden Administration previously estimated that Iran’s trade dropped by 40%, or some $18 billion, during 2019 and 2020, as President Trump’s sanctions hit. They inflicted significant harm on Iranian Government finances and caused a collapse in the Iranian currency.

Despite the effectiveness of these sanctions in bringing Iran to the negotiating table, the new President’s team has taken a different approach, and it is understood that Iran’s financial position has already improved as a result of lax sanctions enforcement against its elicit oil sales. This will have secured Tehran invaluable revenue to stave off fiscal collapse, while emboldening it to continue destabilising regional policies and to continue its nuclear escalation.

In recent weeks, there have been reports that the Biden Administration may be willing to provide significant sanctions relief and release frozen assets. Some reports even suggest that sanctions could be lifted on banks, human rights abusers and those with links to terrorism. Does the Minister share my and other Members’ concerns at these reports? What assessment has he made of the effectiveness of the UK’s existing sanctions against the Iranian people who are already listed? What does the UK intend to do about the list of entities that have previously supported Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes, which are stated to be delisted in 2023 by the EU and the UK pursuant to annexe II and annexe V of the JCPOA nuclear deal?

Even if the JCPOA is resurrected and re-enforced, delisting these persons and entities will mean that, as the deal lurches on, Iran’s network of proliferators receive sanctions relief in the EU and the UK without being required to undergo a change in behaviour. I encourage my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider the UK leading an international effort to compile an exhaustive list of those responsible for human rights abuses in Iran and to hold them accountable through additional waves of sanctions. It should be a concern for us all that we have reached this point. Whether with our presence in the region or sanctions from Westminster, we must continue through free debates such as these to let the Iranian people know that we are speaking for them and Iran’s leaders know we are watching them. The Iranian people must know that their plight and the plight of the whole region has not been forgotten.

15:30

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for bringing this debate and giving us all a chance to support it and be part of it. I will miss my colleague, Sir David Amess, as others have also said. He undoubtedly would have been here and standing up for democracy and justice, alongside us, as he always did in these matters.

I want to put on record some words which I did not have the chance to say yesterday, but that want to say today, if I may. I know that David was a man of faith and would have appreciated these words, which I believe would have been true of David, from 2 Timothy, chapter 4, verses 7 and 8:

“He has fought the good fight, he has finished the race, he has kept the faith.

Henceforth there is laid up for him the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to him on that day and not only to him, but also to all who have loved his appearing”.

We mourn his passing, but also celebrate his life and pass on sincere sympathies to his wife, children and family circle.

Few of us can plead ignorance of what is happening in Iran. We can all see the fact that life continues: the race for nuclear arms continues in violation of the joint comprehensive plan of action and, unfortunately, global inaction will allow this to continue to the detriment of us all.

I am sure that many of us have read the IAEA report, which makes clear that the regime has 10 kg of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade level, at a very dangerous point. In addition, Tehran has stockpiled more than 120 kg of 20% enriched uranium, also ready to go. Under the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal—the JCPOA—the regime is not allowed to enrich uranium above 3.5%. The maths are clear—you do not need to be an Einstein to work it out, Ms Nokes: Iran is above the threshold and in violation, and steps must indeed be taken, not just words. That is not a criticism, by the way, but we need something better than words.

In February, the IAEA inspectors confirmed that the regime had produced 3.6 grams of uranium metal at the Isfahan nuclear plant. The IAEA also warned that its verification had been seriously undermined since February by Tehran’s refusal to allow inspectors access to the IAEA monitoring equipment. One of its recent reports also stipulates:

“The presence of multiple uranium particles of anthropogenic origin at three locations in Iran not declared to the agency, as well as the presence of isotopically altered particles at one of these locations, is a clear indication that nuclear material and/or equipment contaminated by nuclear material has been present at these locations”.

These things could not be more serious or worrying, as others have said. What is not needed today—I say this with respect—is a strongly worded statement by the E3: the Governments of France, Germany and the United Kingdom warning this is a key step in the development of a nuclear weapon. We need action. The National Council of Resistance of Iran, which I think everyone of us here has probably been invited to speak or has spoken at—Sir David was one of the speakers at every event held here—made five recommendations. I will make them here to the Minister, because I support them.

The six UN Security Council resolutions must be reinstituted and implemented. Secondly, the regime’s enrichment programme must be stopped completely and its nuclear sites must be closed. Thirdly, anytime, anywhere inspections must be carried out and the regime’s missile programme must be brought to a halt. Fourthly, the Security Council must recognise the regime in Iran as the main threat to global peace and security and place its nuclear programme under chapter VII of the UN Charter. Fifthly, the Government must proscribe the Islamic revolutionary guard, the IRGC, in its entirety under the Terrorism Act 2000, as recommended by the Foreign Affairs Committee.

In conclusion, this House must seriously consider the steps that we take. This is a matter of life and death, and the security of this great nation and of every nation in the world. Words are not enough; we must act, and act soon. Do the five things that the National Council of Resistance of Iran have said to do, and we are going somewhere.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

If Members can stick to three and a half minutes, they will all get in.

15:35

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing this debate.

I rise as someone who thought that the JCPOA was a mistake in the first place. It was a mistake because we cannot trust Iran. We have the evidence; we know that they have the ballistic missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon. The evidence for that is clear. We know that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is responsible for terrorist acts around the world, attacking shipping in international shipping lanes and sponsoring terrorism across the middle east. That evidence is quite clear, and I agree with hon. Members across this Chamber that have supported the proscription of the entirety of the IRGC. I would go further: their assets should be sequestered and used for the benefit of the people of Iran.

The central point is whether we can trust Iran if we are going to negotiate with it. This is where we must remember my good friend, Sir David Amess. He was the leader of our delegation each year to the annual conference of the NCRI. He led Parliament, and in many ways the world, with his position on securing the ability of refugees from the regime of the mullahs to find safety in Camp Ashraf and beyond. The reality, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) mentioned, is that in 2018 there was a bomb attack planned on the NCRI conference. Sir David Amess, myself and others—including my right hon. Friend—were present at that conference. Had they succeeded, we would have all been killed—no question whatsoever.

The evidence is clear that it was a diplomat who smuggled that bomb from Iran into Belgium, using diplomatic bags and then passing it to two terrorists who would then insert it at the conference to destroy many world leaders. I predict that, had they succeeded, there could have been another world war—it was as serious as that. Can we trust people who use diplomatic channels in that way? There have been no consequences for Iranian diplomatic channels. I ask the Minister: what action is going to be taken? That diplomat has been found guilty and imprisoned. What action is going to be taken against the Iranians for their breach of diplomatic channels? It disregards every element of what should happen.

Equally, there is a pressing case in the not too distant future at COP26. The Iranian President, Ebrahim Raisi, is expected to participate in COP26 and come to this country, to Glasgow. This man, who was elected—or appointed—as the President of Iran by the regime of the mullahs, was the chief prosecutor for the 1988 massacres. He personally authorised the execution of nearly 30,000 individuals, including pregnant women and children, when the attempted purge of the minority parties in Iran was taking place. That was to eliminate people, and he still says that it is God’s command that this action should be taken, just because people do not agree with the exact terminology of the regime of the mullahs. This is the President who is going to be invited to our country to participate in important talks across the piece. The reality is that we cannot trust him, we cannot trust the regime, and we must take strong action.

I end with one aspect that I ask the Minister to reflect on. We cannot allow the Iranian Government to secure a nuclear weapon, because the threat to peace in the middle east is too great. We must say that they will not be allowed to secure nuclear weapons—ever.

15:39

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). I should declare an interest: the Conservative Friends of Israel paid for accommodation at the Conservative party conference, and it will be on the register shortly. I am also chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Kurdistan.

It is with depressing predictability that these debates on Iran’s malign activities occur. The contributions of Members have been remarkably consistent. I have long held the belief that Iran can best be described as the Soviet Union of the middle east. I first made that observation in December 2011 and almost a decade later, it rings as true today as it did then. Iran continues to oppress its citizens at home, just as it uses its notorious Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to export violence and instability abroad. Domestically, thousands of Iranians have been executed and hundreds more killed for daring to promote democracy. It is known for financing Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, as well set out by right hon. and hon. Friends and Members.

The JCPOA nuclear deal was presented to the world as a game-changing moment, a new nuclear framework that would restrain Iran’s nuclear programme and lay the ground for a reformed Iran. Far from it: Iran has retreated within itself, terrorism has increased and the dictatorship has continued. Iran appears to be deliberately raising the stakes in a belligerent effort, not only to advance its nuclear capabilities but to strongarm ever greater concessions from the P5+1.

The UK Government have previously likened the JCPOA to a hollow shell and recognised that it has failed to curtail Iran’s nuclear violations. The JCPOA also does not address Iran’s repression of internal minorities such as the Kurds, nor does it address the aggressive and expansionist activities of the state. The hope of western signatories is that the nuclear deal would come to discourage that bad behaviour, which has included missile attacks against Iranian Kurdish parties in the Kurdistan region, as well as support for and direction of the proxy Shia militia forces in Iraq. Under the direction of the late al-Quds leader Qasem Soleimani, that included participation in the violent seizure of Kirkuk on 16 October 2017 following the peaceful independence referendum in September. Of course, the Kurdistan Regional Government support diplomatic relations with all their neighbours, but the Iranian regime cannot be trusted by its own people or the neighbouring countries.

Does the Minister think that the return to the JCPOA framework will alter Iran’s behaviour and does he intend to tackle Iran’s egregious human rights abuses and support for terrorism, which was so mistakenly omitted from the JCPOA? The UK has a proud record of placing human rights at the centre of our foreign policy and sanctions. Why not consider introducing Magnitsky-style sanctions against Iran? I have warned before that a nuclear Iran would not just mean a nuclear Iran; it means a nuclear Hezbollah, a nuclear Hamas and so forth. It sickens me to the stomach that we now stand on the edge of that becoming a reality.

15:42

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing the debate.

It is regrettable that, despite the best of intentions, diplomatic efforts over many months have failed to bring Tehran back into compliance with the JCPOA nuclear deal. Since the dispute resolution mechanism was triggered by the UK, France and Germany back in January last year, Iran has accelerated the enrichment of uranium to near weapons grade and is now producing uranium metal. It was hoped that Tehran would engage constructively with the DRM process, but it quickly became apparent that Tehran had no desire whatsoever to re-join negotiations, even triggering the DRM itself in July of last year in an act of defiance.

Yet instead of notifying the UN Security Council of Iran’s non-compliance and triggering a vote on the snapback of sanctions, the E3 have repeatedly pledged that they are committed to preserving the JCPOA. By refusing to accept that the agreement could no longer be resuscitated, the P5+1 allowed the UN arms embargo to expire last year and sent a clear message to Iran that no matter what its transgressions, it will not face any consequences. That is particularly troubling given that a further sunset will end in 2023 on the UN ban on Iran’s missile programme. We must be clear-sighted on this. Our failure to act has given Iran the green light to further develop its nuclear capabilities and harmful regional influence.

Just as so many feared at the time the agreement was signed, Iran’s network of terror proxies is the principal beneficiary of sanctions relief. From reportedly providing the Hamas terror group with $30 million per month, to cajoling the Hezbollah terror group in Lebanon, Iran’s terrorist network reaches far and wide. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps directs this activity, and it really is time that the UK proscribes the IRGC to send a clear message that Iran’s malign activities will not be tolerated. At a time when Israel faces greater threats from terror groups than ever before, the support of its neighbours and the international community is paramount.

By separating Iran’s nuclear programme from its other destructive and oppressive actions, the JCPOA failed to address Iran’s goal to destabilise the region, with a nuclear weapon as its ultimate insurance policy. To finally hold Iran to account, we must accept that the JCPOA simply cannot be revived. I hope that the Minister will provide some clear red lines and assure me and colleagues that the UK will rule nothing out to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

15:46

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing this important debate on Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA. Many hon. and right hon. Members have perfectly articulated the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, and I add my voice to their concerns. For the sake of the safety of our close allies in the middle east, this issue must remain at the forefront of our foreign policy agenda.

However, I am also going to highlight a different issue from those raised by my colleagues: the mendacious and pernicious Iranian regime being a real threat to Jewish communities in my constituency and beyond. Every Member participating in this debate and all right-minded Members of the House must continue to be shocked and appalled that a community here in the UK requires synagogues, schools and community centres to be behind gates, with security guards. I pay credit to the Community Security Trust for its work in keeping the Jewish community safe and secure. One of the many reasons it exists is that Iran remains a state sponsor of terrorism; the US Government designated it as such in 1984.

Iran directly and indirectly promotes terrorism against its perceived adversaries, which includes Jewish and Israeli interests worldwide. Iran and its proxy Hezbollah operate globally and possess international terrorist capabilities. The 2019 intelligence assessment of the US office of national intelligence stated that both Iran and Hezbollah will continue to develop global terrorist capabilities. In 2018 and 2019 alone, authorities in Poland, Albania, Denmark, France and Germany arrested or expelled Iranians or blamed Iran for engaging in assassination and terrorist-related activities in their countries. Iran and Hezbollah have been responsible for numerous anti-Jewish terrorist attacks, plots and operations for over 40 years. The highest profile incident was the appalling bombing of the AMIA community centre, which was ordered by Iran and executed by Hezbollah. CST’s reports have detailed more than 30 examples of executed, failed or foiled Iranian and Hezbollah attacks worldwide, directed at Jewish communities and Israeli interests across the globe.

Here in the UK, there have been many outspoken rallies and public displays of support for the Iranian regime and Hezbollah. Who could forget the awful antisemitic chanting through the streets of London during the annual al-Quds Day march? More recently, the al-Quds Day march has been organised by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, which has a direct link to the Iranian regime through one of its co-founders. When General Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force, was killed in an American drone strike, there were vigils in Luton, Manchester, Birmingham and London. At one such event, the chair of the Islamic Human Rights Commission stated:

“we hope and we pray and we work hard to make sure that there will be many, many more Qassem Soleimanis.”

There are many more example I could give, but I am precluded from doing so by time constraints.

In conclusion, this is an organisation based here, in our streets, in this country. It is hardly surprising that Jewish people feel anxious. Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, but its mendacious actions across the UK and abroad must also be stopped.

15:49

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing this debate, and also commend him on a very measured and serious speech, which I entirely agreed with. I also strongly agree with his point—I am conscious that I am paraphrasing, but it is useful for some Members to be reminded of this—that not everything that happens in the middle east is about Israel. Plenty of other countries across the middle east have a great deal to fear from a nuclear Iran. As friendly outsiders to all communities in the middle east, it is incumbent on us to look at a wider prism than the interests of just one community or country.

My party’s standpoint on any matters nuclear is that we abhor nuclear weapons. We do not want to see proliferation around the world. We also want to see the UK rid of nuclear weapons, and we want them out of Scotland’s soil. That is, of course, a different discussion, but my party’s proposition is that, as an independent state, we will get rid of the nuclear weapons and employ more people in conventional defence, which will be more effective and better suited. It will also be a better example for the world. If we are serious about cutting back on nuclear proliferation, let us consider our own role in encouraging these weapons. That is a different discussion for a different time, which I look forward to.

However, there is much agreement on both sides of the House today, and I would like to focus on that. We all agree that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a massively negative influence in the middle east and the wider world. My party supports the JCPOA. I take on board a number of the criticisms and concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House, and we are not naive about its failings or the failings and, indeed, mendacity of the Iranian regime. However, we do favour talk, and I would Members what their proposition is if they are not in favour of the JCPOA. If they are not in favour of talks and an internationally binding legal agreement, what are they proposing? We are open to Magnitsky sanctions, and we are open to other embargoes, but we do believe that the JCPOA, with its faults, is the best chance of bringing Iran to the table.

We therefore support the UK Government’s efforts. Indeed, I suspect I am more supportive of their efforts than some Members on the Government Benches in today’s discussions. I commend the Minister for what he has been doing, because—I agree with the concerns that have been expressed by Members on both sides of the House—the signs are not encouraging. The IAEA’s report confirmed that Iran has stepped up enrichment of uranium. There is absolutely no justification for the levels of enriched uranium that Iran now has and its capacity to make more. There is no civilian purpose for such a product. It is simply an effort to achieve nuclear weapons, which must be resisted and stopped.

The news yesterday that there will not be a Brussels meeting to try and push on the JCPOA efforts is dispiriting, but we must continue. We must push on these efforts. We need to give more impetus to these efforts, not less. We cannot be seen here to be undermining efforts at talks when they are under way. I urge the Minister to continue his efforts, to get stuck in and to breathe some impetus into these talks. I would be grateful for an update if he can give one, given the confidential nature of those discussions. He can be assured of Scottish National party support for his efforts and indeed those of the wider Government.

Having expressed that support and demonstrated, I hope, bipartisanship, can I also make a plea? Can the riot act please be read to UK Government Ministers to stop them playing fast and loose with respect for international law? The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said recently that the protocol would be breached in a “limited and specific way”. Those are not the words of a serious Government that respect international law. It sets a bad example for the bad actors who already exist in the world. Then, an unelected Lord, a member of the UK Government—it is telling that many do not like unelected bureaucrats and decrees by high muftis or whoever else in Tehran—absolutely disingenuously said that elements of the EU withdrawal agreement were contingent or would somehow fall away, when that was not the intention of the UK Government, and it certainly was not the intention of anybody else.

Over the weekend we then saw, most egregiously of all, the Lord Chancellor, no less, floating the constitutionally and legally illiterate idea that the Government will somehow intervene in and overturn decisions on human rights where the judges get them wrong. It is this Parliament that changes the law, not the Government. That sort of statement would not be out of place in Tehran, and we must be conscious of the examples we are setting.

Where the UK Government are serious about breathing life back into these talks and stopping nuclear proliferation anywhere in the middle east, but especially in Iran, they will have SNP support. I encourage the Minister to make more efforts in that regard.

15:54

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Nokes. I had hoped to speak yesterday about Sir David Amess. He was a man of great knowledge and experience, and he had a great interest in this area. I got to know him very well during the last few days of his life. He was a very decent and honourable man, and we all regret his passing.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing a debate on what he says, quite correctly, is an extremely important issue. As has been made clear this afternoon, the multilateral negotiations with Iran have stalled. Progress had been made when President Rouhani of Iran was in power, but a deal had not been concluded before he left office in August this year. Since then, President Raisi has come into office and the talks have stopped. I am sure we would all agree that this is a worrying situation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) said very clearly.

According to the Tehran Times, the Iranian Foreign Minister said to the Iranian Parliament that the United States

“must certainly take serious action”

before any new negotiations take place. According to some commentators, it seems that President Raisi is adopting a hard approach. That is extremely worrying. Because of Iran’s violations of the JCPOA, Iran could, if it was so inclined, produce enough nuclear material for a nuclear bomb literally during the next few months. In the past year, Iran has successfully enriched uranium to a new threshold just short of the grade needed for a nuclear weapon. In addition, there are other weapons-related activities that are currently prohibited by the JCPOA that Iran might develop under the guise of civil nuclear necessity. These reports all make the situation very concerning and raise the question of how the international community should respond. We know that both the United States and Israel have threatened to use force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons—I would suggest that it is in the back of the minds of one or two Members here that that might happen. However, we should be acutely aware of the huge risks involved in military action. We should be cognisant of the fact that as Kelsey Davenport, director for non-proliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, has said this could

“backfire in the long run”,

and a

“larger-scale attack could push Tehran to consider abandoning its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty commitments”

and developing nuclear weapon production

“in order to deter further attacks”.

An alternative option has been suggested, and I ask Members to think about it. That would be to restore the JCPOA talks on the basis of an interim agreement or a gesture-for-gesture arrangement that reduces the proliferation-sensitive activities of Iran in exchange for certain and very limited sanctions relief for Iran. If that approach was successful, it could take us beyond the current impasse and allow for new negotiations to be mapped out that would take us beyond the confines of the JCPOA, which many Members have accurately pointed out, and give us scope for sanctions relief. That could provide the opportunity to address other concerns about Iran’s activities—namely, as Members have mentioned, the development of a ballistic missile programme designed to deliver nuclear weapons, and Iran’s support for terrorist groups and militias throughout the middle east. Those must be placed near the top of the agenda. In other words, perhaps there needs to be a short-term approach but also a longer-term perspective if we are serious about dealing with the issue of Iran in the long term.

Finally, we are all extremely concerned about the widespread human rights abuses occurring in Iran as we speak. Hostage taking is absolutely deplorable. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on her determination in championing the case of her constituent, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, but also those of the other dual nationals who are held illegally in Iran. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that specifically, to see whether any progress has been made.

Our country must go beyond its current approach of discreet pressure on Iran regarding human rights abuses. We should be actively considering extending Magnitsky-style sanctions against key Iranian perpetrators of human rights abuses. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that suggestion specifically.

Iran is an ancient country. It has a rich culture, is capable of developing a strong and diverse economy, and has the potential to be a positive member of the international community. However, that will happen only if we are firm in our goals and determined to work in partnership with the United States and the European Union by insisting that firm objectives must be realised.

16:01

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing this incredibly important and timely debate. I am also grateful for his recognition, and that of a number of hon. and right hon. Members, that I am in many ways constrained in terms of how much detail I can go into in this important and sensitive debate. I thank hon. Members for their understanding.

We have heard thoughtful, balanced and significant contributions by a number of hon. and right hon. Members this afternoon. Iran’s nuclear programme is, sadly, more advanced and worrying than it has perhaps ever been. That is why we are so focused on negotiating a deal that returns Iran to full compliance with the JCPOA commitments and doing so as soon as possible. Between 2015 and 2019, the joint comprehensive plan of action demonstrated that it could deliver results. For the UK and the international community, it restricted Iran’s nuclear programme to civilian use and supported the global non-proliferation system. For Iran, phased sanctions relief offered a more prosperous future for its people.

However, Iran has failed to comply with its JCPOA commitments for more than two years now. It continues to upgrade its nuclear capability, permanently and irreversibly. There is no doubt about this. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, has verified Iran’s actions. Today, Iran’s nuclear programme is more advanced and worrying than ever before. The IAEA confirmed in August that Iran has produced uranium metal enriched up to 20% for the first time, and Iran has significantly increased its capability to produce uranium enriched up to 60%, as a number of hon. Members have mentioned in the debate.

It is impossible to overstate the severity of Iran’s actions. It has no credible civilian need to take such steps. It is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons to enrich uranium to 60%. Meanwhile, Iran has withdrawn from the JCPOA-agreed monitoring arrangement. That means that the IAEA has lost crucial insight into the status of Iran’s nuclear programme, precisely at the time that Iran is escalating its activities. There is no credible reason why the IAEA’s access should be restricted. There has never been a clearer imperative to halt the nuclear escalation and for Iran to return to the JCPOA commitments.

The diplomatic door remains—currently—open, but Iran must urgently return to talks in Vienna and engage in good faith. We remain committed to delivering a successful deal. A restored deal could also pave the way for further discussions on regional and security concerns, including in support of the non-proliferation regime.

While the JCPOA is not perfect, it is currently the only framework for monitoring and constraining Iran’s nuclear programme. We have fully upheld the JCPOA commitments from our side, including the lifting of sanctions. From April this year, we engaged in negotiations in Vienna, in good faith, alongside the US and other partners. Iran stepped away from those negotiations in June, after 10 weeks and six rounds of talks.

The UK, France, Germany, the US, Russia and China all stand ready to resume negotiations with Iran. We want to conclude the deal that is on the table. There is a substantial offer from the US on the table—to lift sanctions inconsistent with the JCPOA in exchange for Iran’s return to full compliance with its nuclear commitments. That is a both fair and comprehensive offer, but Iran has, thus far, failed to seize this opportunity.

We should be clear on this—time is running out to conclude a deal, and we may soon have to reconsider our approach. Every day that Iran delays talks and escalates its nuclear programme, it hurts its own economy and its own people the most. Iran’s current action is not in Iran’s best interests. With the diplomatic door still open to restore the JCPOA and lift sanctions, Iran must come back to the negotiating table, as a matter of urgency, to pick up where we left off. In the meantime, we will continue holding it to account for its nuclear escalation and wider destabilising behaviour.

A number of Members have spoken about British dual nationals in arbitrary detention in Tehran. The UK Government remain absolutely committed to securing their full release and returning them to their families and their loved ones. We will not rest until that is done. All Members should recognise that that incarceration is the fault and responsibility of the Iranian regime—no one else, nowhere else.

A number of right hon. and hon. Members mentioned the sanctions regime. We currently have more than 200 UK sanctions designations in place against Iran, including those related to human rights abuses and against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety. Right hon. and hon. Members will understand that it is not useful to discuss or speculate on future sanctions regimes, as that might undermine their authority. We will continue our approach based on a combination of engagement, pressure and incentives.

As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said, we want to see a prosperous and peaceful Iran that feels secure within its own borders, and does not pose a threat to this country, our interests, or our allies. We are ready, willing and able to reach a negotiated settlement to that effect. It is now up to Tehran to engage seriously in that process.

16:08

[Stephen Crabb]

I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks and those clear statements of his understanding of the position regarding Iran’s nuclear programme. I am pleased that there seems to be agreement in the Chamber this afternoon on the facts on the ground. We have independent verification of those facts. I believe there is a strong measure of consensus in the room about just how serious the crossroads is that we have now reached with Iran. There is widespread concern, as expressed this afternoon, about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and the consequences not just for the middle east region but for international stability and the whole world.

I believe there has been a strong message this afternoon to Ministers and the Government on the need to be robust and keep all options on the table—we completely understand why the Minister cannot comment on some of the detailed specifics that have been put to him. I believe that Iran’s regime responds only to strong pressure, and I remain sceptical about moves to give further concessions to the Iranian regime when it has shown so consistently in the past that it banks them and then seeks further concessions.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) has reminded us just how sensitive some of the issues around hostage taking are, and of the links between those issues and some of these big, strategic questions that we have discussed this afternoon. I am grateful for a very constructive and interesting debate.

Question put and agreed to. 

Resolved,

That this House has considered Iran’s compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Greenbelt: Local Plans

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Westminster Hall

16:10

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Before we begin the next debate, I again encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission, and to give each other and staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.

16:10

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered inclusion of greenbelt land in local plans.

It is my absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I applied for this debate as a number of my constituents quite rightly have written and spoken to me over recent months with concerns about potential building on green belt, in particular in the ward of Carpenders Park. Although it is my understanding that as a Member of Parliament I am not allowed to interfere in the planning process, nor do I have any control over housing targets or a planning authority’s local plan, I would like to confirm that with the Minister today. I have several questions, and some context to those questions, as we go through, to see whether there is anything I can do as the Member of Parliament to ensure that green belt in Carpenders Park is not included in the local plan.

I would be grateful to the Minister if he could confirm that that is indeed the case. I must say I am deeply concerned by the inclusion of green belt in the local plan during the recent consultation process. As the MP for Watford, I am acutely aware of where we are situated: we are not in London, but we are inside the M25, and the ever-growing expansion of the capital over decades has rightly led to Government intervention to protect our local green spaces and our great town from being swallowed up in the metropolis.

My constituency covers two distinct local authorities, Watford Borough Council and Three Rivers District Council, and it is the latter that I will focus on today. Within Three Rivers we find Carpenders Park; I invite the Minister to visit at some point, and he will see it is a wonderful part of my constituency, with beautiful open green spaces. However, most at the heart of the community are the people. I have had the luxury of witnessing over the past two years how the community comes together and works together. In particular, in this instance I will illustrate that with the work the community has done to protect its green space in the face of the local plan inclusion.

I have had the opportunity to meet local residents, most recently in a community meeting organised by Councillors David Coltman, Donna Duncan and Shanti Maru and others, where I was able to speak to them about their concerns about the green belt and the local plan consultation. In addition, I went to a meeting with a campaign group set up in response to the local plan consultation, which included Rue Grewel, Terry Voss, Ketul Patel, Lester Wagman, Ross King and Jack Eliades, and Pandora Melly, who was unfortunately unable to attend on that night.

Since then, Rue, Terry and Lester have set up their own campaign group, which is called “Can’t Replace Green Space”. I do not think anyone could get more on the nose than that statement. Going out through old-fashioned engagement they have knocked on doors, spoken to people, helped them to fill out the consultations and done an enormous amount of work to encourage local residents to respond to the local consultation.

We have seen an incredible response, with thousands on thousands of signatures of people saying, quite rightly, that they do not want that patch of their area to be built on with housing. I should note that this is not about nimbyism; the campaigners have incredibly powerful reasons why the area should not be included. There are potential brownfield sites that could be built on in other areas, so looking at this area is not a last resort.

In my efforts to understand whether I as a local Member of Parliament can do anything to stop the inclusion, I have spent many hours researching local planning rules extensively—more than I am expected to understand as an MP. I hope Members will bear with me as I share these points. As I understand it—I would appreciate confirmation of this—the national planning policy framework provides the framework against which local planning authorities draw up their local plans and determine applications for planning permission. Chapter 13 of the framework, the NPPF, deals specifically with protecting green-belt land and it states clearly that established green-belt boundaries should be changed only

“where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified”.

The NPPF is also clear that inappropriate development that is harmful to the green belt should also only be approved “in very special circumstances”.

Paragraph 141 states:

“Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the…authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development.”

I fully understand residents’ concerns that Three Rivers has not yet been able to demonstrate that in its local plan consultation. Paragraph 149 also lists exceptions where building on the green belt will not be considered inappropriate.

Since being elected I have raised multiple times in private meetings with the former Secretary of State and the current Housing Minister my concerns about over-development across Watford in general, particularly about tall towers, but given that this debate is about the green belt I will not cover those right now. In the Chamber a few months ago I asked whether it is the case that housing target needs are not set in stone and that they are a starting point for negotiation. Will the Minister confirm whether that is still the case, and that a planning inspector can accept a lower housing need target for the green belt to be protected if a local plan sets out clear criteria and presents a credible and reasonable alternative? I have seen articles recently in my local area saying that no local authority can challenge the housing need set by the standard method for assessing housing need. However, if the local plan is the starting point for determining the planning process, it would be most appropriate to use that as a mechanism to challenge the standard method in order to protect our precious green belt. It is possible, in my view.

Indeed, House of Commons Library research has concluded that the inspector can challenge local authorities on their desire to build on green-belt land, where they fail to challenge the housing need in the local plan. I found many examples, but these two come to mind. In Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, where 77% of the borough is found within the South Yorkshire green belt—similar to Three Rivers, where 76% of the district is classified as green belt—the planning inspector found that exceptional circumstances did not exist to justify altering the green-belt boundary, which highlights the importance of local authorities considering adjusting the boundary only as a last resort. That was also the case for Rugby Borough Council, where the inspector found that green-belt expansion would

“breach the existing strong, clearly defined boundary which would cause significant harm to the purpose of the Green Belt in this location.”

At this point I want to clarify that I am not attempting to do point-scoring politics. This is not about me trying to challenge the council to be difficult—to do political point scoring or get into a blame game. I want to be supportive and for the debate to help support it as regards removing the green belt from Carpenders Park. I want to highlight that this issue is about local people having a say in their local area, and through the process of consultation making sure that their voices are heard. I hope today’s debate will enable that even further.

I have also raised the challenge that engagement for the local plan absolutely has to come from people putting in petitions as well as individual comments. One thing that I have found—I do not know whether it is a Government or a local policy, so perhaps we will get clarity—is that thousands of people sign a petition, but that is accepted only as a single entry in a consultation, rather than as representing the thousands of signatories.

I have chatted with Alex Hayward, the leader of the Conservatives—not currently in control—on Three Rivers District Council. She confirmed that she would remove the area of green belt from the plan, so there is not a lack of political will to do so. Something that has been covered so much in the mainstream press and locally, which I will not going into detail on, is the charge that the Government are inflicting national targets on local areas, causing the green belt to be at risk. Until recently I could see that argument. In their manifesto, the Conservatives had a target of 300,000 new homes; I believe Labour had 1 million over the Parliament and the Liberal Democrats had a target of 300,000. However, I am led to believe that at the recent Lib Dem conference they voted to increase the national housebuilding target to 380,000 a year. I doubt that that political argument holds weight any more, given the fact that the parties have all increased the house building target. I do not want to get into that political battle, other than to say it is important that local residents are heard, irrespective of the national politicking that goes on.

Could the Minister confirm that the planning White Paper is just that—a White Paper? There are press reports that a Bill is passing through Parliament, with various announcements, leaflets and press coverage about what that Bill includes. Actually, nothing has gone through Parliament yet. Anything talking about the planning Bill is not factual, and the White Paper is just the White Paper. Therefore, it is not yet in the public realm what that might include. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the reasons why the 2014-based household projections continue to be used seven years later to determine housing need according to the standard method, and whether that is likely to change? Residents have raised that issue with me.

Above all, I am keen to stand up for residents in my constituency and for our green spaces. I cannot state enough how important it is to ensure that Carpenders Park remains the beautiful place and community that it is today. I want to make sure that continues for many decades to come. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about this incredibly important issue. The residents of Carpenders Park deserve to have their voices heard. As their MP, I have been led to believe that I cannot be involved in the planning process; however, if I am able to be, I would like the Minister to let me know. If I cannot be, I would like to do anything else I can do to help local residents. I would like answers to their valid concerns, so I can ensure that Carpenders Park continues to be the beautiful place and community that it is. I thank the Minister for his time and I look forward to any further guidance on how we can protect our local green space in Watford.

16:23

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. It is also my particular pleasure to be able to address hon. Members as the representative of the new Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Levelling up is about empowering local leaders and communities and creating nice places to live, both of which are highly relevant to this debate.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) for securing this important debate. His constituency, as he said, includes areas governed by two local authorities—Watford and Three Rivers. His constituents are hugely fortunate to have my hon. Friend as their MP. He is a relentless, articulate and learned champion for them, particularly on this issue. He asked me to confirm that he cannot interfere in the planning process. He cannot control the numbers the local authority chooses to go for—I am happy to confirm he is correct on that.

Let me reiterate the Government’s absolutely unwavering commitment to protecting the green belt. There has been no greater advocate for the green belt and for our valued countryside than the Prime Minister. He could not have been clearer in his address to the party conference two weeks ago. Homes should not be built on green fields if we can possibly help it. Instead, we should focus on boosting construction on brownfield sites. I will talk about both of those today.

I am naturally very sympathetic to the concerns of local residents, but hon. Members will appreciate that the Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in the planning system, so I cannot comment on individual planning proposals. While the Government set national planning policy in England, local authorities are responsible for local planning matters, including the distribution and density of development across their areas, the designation of land as green belt and co-operation with neighbouring authorities on matters that cross boundaries. Local plans are the key documents through which local planning authorities can set out a vision and a framework for the future development of their area but, crucially, planning must be carried out in democratic consultation with local residents so that everyone can have their say. The community’s voice must be heard. My hon. Friend talked about the central importance of consultation and democracy in his speech and the good work being done by some of the groups in his constituency. I am sorry to hear that he feels that in his constituency there has been a tremendous democratic failure on the part of the council to listen and act on residents’ concerns. He mentioned a couple of particular sites where that was the case.

On the green belt, as my hon. Friend knows, the manifesto on which the Government were elected was unequivocal in its commitment not just to protecting the greenbelt and the countryside, but to enhancing it for future generations. The green belt is vital in preventing urban sprawl and stopping encroachment on our beautiful countryside. That is why national planning policy delivers strict protections for the green belt, along with strong safeguards against boundary changes and development.

Councils must meet two clear tests to make any changes. The first test outlined in the national planning policy framework ensures that local authorities are prevented from changing a green-belt boundary other than in exceptional circumstances. They must show that every other reasonable option has been exhausted, and that includes using brownfield land, optimising the density of development and discussing whether neighbouring authorities can take some of the development. In addition, local authorities must consult local people before submitting a revised plan for examination by an inspector. If a local authority finds that it really cannot avoid removing land from the green belt, it is expected to offset the loss of that land through environmental and access improvements to the remaining green belt.

The second test sets out that, where there is a green belt, local authorities should regard the construction of most types of new building in that green belt as inappropriate. They should be refused planning permission unless there are very special circumstances. Let me use this opportunity to reassure hon. Friends and Members that we will continue to afford maximum protection to our green belt. We stand squarely behind that commitment as we take forward our important agenda to level up the country. It is important to stress that national policy sets the expectation that local planning policies and decisions should enhance as well as protect green-belt land. Most of the green belt is countryside, often containing valuable biodiversity soils and attractive landscapes.

As the Prime Minister has made clear, we must reduce pressure on green fields by focusing on delivering beautiful homes on brownfield land, particularly in urban areas. The national planning policy framework strongly encourages regeneration and the reuse of brownfield sites, especially for development to meet housing need and to regenerate our high streets and town centres, as we all want. Local plans should support opportunities to remediate contaminated land or identify underused sites as the first priority—and we were the first Government to require councils to make registers of all their brownfield land.

Of course, brownfield does not just mean derelict plots; they are obvious brownfield. We have already widened permitted development rules, allowing extensions, adaptations and even demolition of unwanted commercial buildings such as boarded-up shops and warehouses, which are natural candidates for new homes. The framework also makes it clear that by achieving the right density of development, a neighbourhood can ensure that urban land is used efficiently. Minimum density standards, in a sort of gentle densification—not tall towers—encouraged by the new national design code guidance, will help to save brownfield land. There is a big difference between gentle density and tall towers, and I highlight to any council the pioneering work of Create Streets on the subject.

We recognise that brownfield sites are harder to deliver, and in some circumstances councils require additional support to maximise their use, so we are helping to fund regeneration, as well as favouring it through legislation and guidance. Only last week, we allocated £58 million to 53 councils through our brownfield land release fund, and that funding will boost local areas by transforming unloved and disused sites into vibrant communities for people to live and work in. With the demolition of unsightly derelict buildings and disused car parks and garages, that is levelling up in action and a clear example of our restoring local pride in place while building the homes this country needs. Crucially, this funding will help to protect the countryside and green spaces. We expect another 5,600 homes to be built on those brownfield sites, supporting young people and families across the country into home ownership.

That is just the latest instalment. Government have made significant investment to unlock brownfield sites—for example, the £4.35-billion housing infrastructure fund, the £4.95-billion home building fund, the £400 million brownfield housing fund and the £75- million brownfield land release fund. Furthermore, through land remediation relief, the Government provide a deduction of 100% from corporation tax, plus 50% for any qualifying expenditure incurred by companies as a clean-up of contaminated land acquired from third parties. No Government have ever invested in brownfield-first regeneration such as this. I hope the councils in my hon. Friend’s constituency will avail themselves of all this help to do brownfield first.

In 2018, we introduced a new standard method in the national planning policy framework for assessing local housing need. My hon. Friend referred to that in his speech. It helps communities to gain a clear understanding of the minimum number of new homes required to inform local plans. I must be clear, however, that the local housing need calculation is by no means a top-down imposed housing target, nor does the method dictate where the new homes go. It is just a starting point when measuring an area’s housing need. A local authority still has to set its own housing target, after taking account of local constraints, including, of course, the green belt, and plan for the right mix of housing type and tenure and in the right places.

My hon. Friend asked me to confirm, as I can, that the use of the standard method in plan making is not mandatory. If it is felt that circumstances warrant an alternative approach to using the standard method, a local authority can put it forward for examination as part of its local plan, although that comes with the caveat that it will be scrutinised closely. Last year, we improved the standard method further, which resulted in an uplifting of the previous figure by 35% in our 20 most populated urban areas, a further move to support a brownfield-first, regeneration-led approach to development.

That enables us to plan for enough homes in a way that maximises the use of existing infrastructure and supports development that is close to shops, schools, local services and good transport connections, and reduces the need for long journeys by car. It will also help drive the regeneration of our high streets, while levelling up our town and city centres across the country.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue today. To raise our sights a bit, the main purpose of the green belt is to ensure that our towns and cities grow in a sustainable way. In the lead-up to the UN climate change conference—COP26—the enormous potential of the green belt and other greenfield land is very visible, helping to support climate change resilience, as part of our green infrastructure, and as an aid to help the natural world to grow and recover. That makes it all the more important for communities to be able to engage with the planning process, making full use of the new digital tools available, to ensure that councillors and planning authorities make the right decisions when they come to balance homes and jobs with protecting our precious countryside for future generations to come.

Question put and agreed to.

High Streets

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Westminster Hall

16:33

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. Please also give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. You will all have seen that it is a very heavily subscribed debate, so I will impose a time limit. Janet Daby will move the motion.

16:35

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for UK high streets.

It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Ms Nokes.

I am grateful to be granted today’s debate at a time when the UK’s high streets are collapsing. They are collapsing under the weight of pandemic closures and unreasonable taxation. Shopkeepers, their staff and customers alike are experiencing a poorer standard of living. They need the Minister to step up and promise to give them the support that they need. They need to be able to breathe a sigh of relief after 19 months of uncertainty and fear. They need to believe that things can indeed get better.

We all have memories of our favourite shops when we were younger—I know I do—whether a favourite bakery, sweet shop or joke shop. However, sadly, many of those places are no longer around for my children to enjoy. Some of the most iconic, big-name retailers even of the last decade have vanished from our high streets: Woolworths, British Home Stores, Debenhams and Littlewoods all spring to mind.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing today’s debate. Over the past few years, as the hon. Lady has said, we have seen an increase in businesses moving away from physical retail space to an online model. The move has benefited retailers at the top levels of their companies, as it comes with associated savings in areas such as business rates or, for us Scots, non-domestic rates. Such moves, however, have a heavy impact on local communities: fewer jobs, for example, or a lack of accessibility.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members to keep interventions brief.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Yes, Ms Nokes. Would the hon. Member agree that the Government should incentivise retailers to maintain a physical presence?

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Member for a really important and significant intervention. All the points that she has mentioned are very pertinent. There is a lot that the Government could do to make improvements.

Even big household names could not operate under the Conservative Government’s business rates. No one 20 years ago would have been able to fathom the end of Topshop—never mind the collapse of the entire Arcadia empire, leading to over 700 job losses and units being left to decay. The growth of online retail has slashed footfall in high streets and town centres, benefiting online giants like ASOS and Amazon and crushing local independents. There is still no commitment from the Government to an online sales tax, which would level the playing field. While major online businesses pay only nominal taxes, bricks-and-mortar small businesses are taxed into extinction. How can the Minister justify that?

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I have been in the House a long time. In 1981, Mrs Thatcher introduced a windfall-profit tax on the banks. Is my hon. Friend thinking of a similar windfall-profit tax on the people who have profited in the covid years, to get them to pay proper levels of tax to invest in our local communities?

[Janet Daby]

I was in primary school at the time that my hon. Friend Gentleman mentions, but I thank him for the intervention. We need a fair tax system, and I will address that in my speech.

I see the effects of the system of business taxation play out in my constituency of Lewisham East. Taxation is simply too high for small and medium-sized enterprises, especially after an insurmountable fall in revenue since March 2020. The current system of business taxation is outdated and unfair. It punishes small businesses aspiring to serve local communities and allows online empires to grow only stronger. In 2019, it was estimated that the eight largest tech companies operating in the UK avoided a combined total of £1.5 billion in tax.

A House of Commons public survey found concerns for our high street and ideas for improvement. Clair said that

“it’s sad to see so many town centres looking deserted, as many shops have been forced to close due to rents and rates.”

Kate said:

“There are empty units which make the town look dead”.

Nobody wants a dead town. Jags was concerned about antisocial behaviour rising on high streets when shops are boarded up. When asked what the Government could do to turn around prospects for high street businesses, Jane simply said:

“Slash taxes for small businesses. Make it worth our while to work the hours we do.”

I agree and Labour agrees.

We need a Government who demonstrate that they are pro-workers and pro-business. A review of all tax breaks needs to happen. The Government need to be serious about investing in a sustainable way that allows home-grown businesses to flourish and ensures the best value for the taxpayer. The local high street is for leisure, but for some it is a lifeline. Almost half of the people living in London use their local area daily. My constituents rely on local shops. They do not want to have to do a laborious journey on public transport or drive through busy London to run their errands. This applies especially to those living with disabilities or pushing prams, or to elderly people struggling with walkers. Why should their lives become more difficult when people wish to shop local and local people wish to work local?

It is not just a problem in cities. High streets that are a centre point for towns across the country are being neglected. A thriving high street can be a source of great pride and a declining one can be shameful. When an area is in decline, property prices fall, the young professionals move out of the area and the local environment begins to decay. We see poverty intensifying and becoming more visible.

The recent trend of high-street bank closures is especially concerning. According to the House of Commons Library, in the past nine years almost 40% of high-street bank branches have closed their doors. In the year between March 2020 and March 2021, 700 branches have closed. That is staggeringly high. I can see the effects in my constituency. The Catford HSBC branch always has queues going out the door, yet it is due to close, which is absurd. The branch is needed because not everyone can adapt easily to online banking. Not everyone has broadband or the support to make the transition to online. It excludes a huge swathe of vulnerable people. All of those customers now need to go into the centre of Lewisham, adding pressure to that branch. A branch of Barclays in the area has already closed. I wonder why the Minister thinks this trend is developing and whether he agrees with it. Will he support my call for HSBC to reconsider this closure?

We should not expect the general public to be comfortable with doing everything online. Local places closing means familiar and trusted people and services are disappearing. It also deprives people of those small moments of human contact, which may seem like nothing to one person, but to another are the tipping point into social isolation. It is essential to people’s wellbeing that in-person services continue. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister what can be done.

While I want to focus today on the burden that the Government’s tax rates place on our struggling businesses, we cannot ignore the impact of the shortage of HGV drivers on our high streets. This is a Brexit-induced crisis that was completely foreseeable. Coupled with the lack of workers to tend to our crops and farm animals, shops have experienced dire product levels on their shelves. High-street cash and carries are struggling to serve their customers. We are also hearing reports of pressure building towards Christmas. When it comes to Christmas, we know it is serious. Most British households want a turkey—I want a turkey—but not every family that wants one will get one, and that is the headline. This comes at the same time as the shocking news of a labour shortage, meaning that pigs are being slaughtered and their meat is unsellable. We all need supply chains freed up and workers trained up so that the embarrassing lack of stocks can be resolved and a Christmas dinner crisis averted.

The Mayor of London has put vision into action to inject new life into our high streets. He is creating vibrant shopfronts for vacant properties, supporting start-ups and keeping the streets clean and appealing. However, there is only so much that local leaders can do. We need a Government to show up and show that they back businesses, workers and communities.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

There are not as many Members as I first feared, so an informal guidance for about five minutes would be very helpful.

16:44

[Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) on securing this debate. I am fortunate enough to represent a number of thriving towns and high streets across my constituency of Truro and Falmouth. Recently, I was delighted and proud to see Truro jump an incredible 72 places to be named one of the best high streets of 2021, despite the coronavirus pandemic. That means that our little city has had a vitality ranking that beats the likes of Brighton, York, Exeter, Oxford and Taunton—all those having exceptional high streets.

Within my constituency I have two high streets that benefit from business improvement districts: Truro and Falmouth. Both have exceptional teams and are worth their weight in gold. Both of the BIDs do so much for the high street businesses and for the shoppers. High streets have struggled, but the BIDs do everything that they can to keep it lively, thriving and pretty. For example, if there is an empty unit on the high street, they are on the scene to cover it over with bright and helpful graphics. Their branding is second to none, particularly in Falmouth, and they did Cornwall proud during the G7 summit earlier this year when it was showcased by the world’s media. I put on record my thanks to the BIDs of Truro, Falmouth and Newham.

As we emerge from the pandemic and the high streets bounce back, the reopening high streets safely fund and the welcome back fund have proven to be instrumental. In Truro, we are currently going through our towns fund process, where an injection of £23.6 million is set to regenerate and transform the city centre. That will be huge for the high street, and will help to reconnect Truro with its water.

As I mention the towns fund, I would also like to make an appeal to the Department and to the Minister, as I look forward to further details being released about the next tranche of the towns deal so that I can lobby, making a similar case for Falmouth.

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Lady is making a very good speech, but she may not know that in my constituency we declared Huddersfield a sustainable town and a sustainable community under the United Nations sustainable development goals. We are building a network of 500 towns and cities; would the hon. Lady consider taking the message back to her communities that we would love to work in partnership with her?

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

I am very happy to take that message back, and hopefully we can connect—I think that is very useful. Falmouth is a town that often gets overlooked because of how well it does with the limited resources it has. A towns fund deal for the port of Falmouth, which is the gateway to the Atlantic, would absolutely unleash this town’s potential. Falmouth’s bid is already leading by example; their proactive engagement tools have supported a brilliantly diverse business events and engagements scene, and have welcomed the regional leads for the south-west in for bids. I would encourage the Department to look closely at the Falmouth bid as a case study for a thriving high street. There needs to be much greater representation on rural and coastal issues pertaining to high streets at the central debating table. On too many occasions, the debate is dominated by the captains of large businesses and of large urban areas, and the points of micro, independent and small businesses in this landscape are largely missed. The high streets taskforce is a good example, as Cornwall has absolutely no representation on it.

During the pandemic the high street had to adapt. In both Truro and Falmouth al fresco dining became the norm, allowing local bars and restaurants to make use of public open spaces to host punters, and continue to deliver a quality service and product. The red tape around the legislation on pavement licences, which has been granted an extension to September 2022, must be cut to allow businesses to extend trading space outside their curtilage. In Cornwall that has opened up opportunities for more imaginative place-shaping, ideas for encouraging visitors and greater collaboration between the small business sector and local councils. Falmouth has been on the front foot with this; by liaising proactively with Cornwall Council, car parks, less used pavement spaces and quiet areas have been transformed into al fresco dining and event options. That has helped to support their summer season as we bounce back from covid.

Lastly, in Cornwall our larger towns, like Truro and Falmouth, are picking up big devolution packages—which is fantastic. However, those packages include public services such as car parks and libraries. The House has made excellent progress by, for example, taking away business rates on public toilets, but we can go further than that; I would love to see business rate relief extended to public services such as car parks, libraries and council offices, encouraging them to relocate to our high streets and giving people more of a reason to visit them. I could go on and say much more, particularly about supporting our high streets to make them low-carbon. We must do more to encourage the green transition: there has to be greater guidance, support and investment for green schemes. As it stands, we rely too much on individual businesses to make such changes, and that puts more pressure on them as they tread water on the back of the pandemic, particularly when we take into account listed buildings and conservation areas, as we have seen in Cornwall.

Although I am a green champion, there is much to consider in this complex area. The future of the high street is exciting and I, for one, will continue to champion high streets in this place.

16:50

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I send my condolences, and those of the people whom I represent in Barnsley, to the family, friends and constituents of Sir David Amess. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) on securing this important debate.

Our high streets have had a difficult 18 months. As footfall recovers, we need to look more closely at how the impact has been distributed across the country. In Exeter, Aldershot and Reading, for example, at least two-thirds of neighbourhoods are likely to have been able to save through the pandemic. That is true for fewer than 25% of neighbourhoods in Hull, Blackpool and Barnsley, however. That will have a real impact on consumers’ ability to spend money in their local economy. In reality, the pandemic has hit poorer areas harder, and we need to consider how we address that.

The demise of our high streets did not begin with covid, but with a decade of austerity. Over the last 10 years, 10,000 shops, 6,000 pubs, 7,500 banks and more than 1,100 libraries have closed. That is felt particularly acutely in semi-rural areas such as the one I represent in Barnsley East. I represent a collection of towns and villages around the centre of Barnsley that do not benefit from a strong local transport network, so the closure of the local bank or library has a huge impact on the local community. We need to ensure that we reverse those figures and do not allow the continued demise of the high street.

In the last year alone 180,000 retail jobs have been lost, and 200,000 more are at risk this year. We need to look at bringing empty commercial properties back into use for new and existing businesses. We need to level the playing field between high-street and online businesses, because the tax system, which was mentioned earlier, is simply not equal. We need to promote entrepreneurship and innovation on our high streets so that they reflect the needs of our local communities.

The challenge faced by our high streets is a good example of why the concept of levelling up is needed. The problem is that we are yet to see the reality. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council has seen some of the worst cuts in the country. The Government talk a good talk about the idea of levelling up poorer communities, but in reality, that is simply not happening. Earlier this year, the Chancellor’s constituency of Richmond (Yorks) was prioritised for funding over Barnsley, and even though Barnsley is more deserving according to every categorisation of need, it did not get funding. We need to make a change to ensure that levelling up is not a slogan, and that we improve our high streets.

16:53

[Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for securing this important debate.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the future of retail, and as a former “Woolies” worker, this is an issue about which I care passionately. During the pandemic, while many retreated to the safety of their own homes, our retail workers rolled up their sleeves and got on with the job. For that, we owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

The challenges faced by our high streets are not new; we have been debating them for decades. The events of the past year have amplified and accelerated those difficulties. I know that the Treasury threw the kitchen sink at supporting businesses during the pandemic, whether through the furlough scheme, the rates holiday or the grants scheme. Those measures have been a life- line for many businesses in my patch.

The role of our high streets is changing, and to help our town centres adapt and change, the Government have rightly been flooding them with funding, including the future high streets fund, the town deals, the levelling-up fund and any other such schemes. In my part of the world and that of the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), Stockton has received £16.5 million of funding to build a high street that is fit for the future; Thornaby has received a £23.9 million town deal that will, among other things, help tear down a defunct hotel that has been an eyesore in the town centre for years; and our levelling-up bid for up to £20 million would help to improve Yarm’s high street. I remain incredibly grateful for that, but there is more to high streets than slick buildings and shiny objects, and that is the businesses that give our high streets a soul.

This afternoon, I met the British Retail Consortium and the CEOs of a huge number of retailers. The biggest single issue raised, which is life or death for many stores in our high streets, was business rates: 83% of retailers feel that they are likely to close stores in the near future if the burden of business rates is not reduced. The business rates regime is simply not fit for purpose. Business rates are outdated: they strangle growth and smother investment. They disproportionately whack the retail and hospitality sectors. Retailers account for 5% of the economy but are subject to 25% of all business rates.

We must do more to tackle crime in our high streets and town centres. Last year, there were 455 assaults on shop workers not every month or every week but every single day. That is the young student in their first job or the semi-retired person topping up their income. I am delighted that the Government have recognised the issue and are looking at it, but we need action and we need it now. We must do more. Many in the retail and hospitality sector are innovative and optimistic. They are ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century, to grow, to provide jobs and to breathe life into our town centres. They can only do that if the Government reduce the burden of business rates, ensure that retail crime is tackled and support innovation in the sector.

16:56

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Nokes.

We need recovery and reform. Anyone who has been to York will know that our high street offer is incredible, yet now, like elsewhere, we are battling empty shops, labour shortages, logistic challenges and offshore landlords more interested in the financial portfolio generated from their property ownership than invested in their high street. This perfect storm sucks the life out of not only our communities but local finances.

With changes to the system, life can be brought back to our urban cores. A few pleas from my local businesses: we need to move away from a property-based tax––I am glad that that is echoed across the House––and build one predicated around profit or turnover. York’s extortionate property prices make business rates unsustainable. Businesses are also calling for the reduction in VAT to be sustained. Recovery takes time and when your high street is dependent on the visitor economy and the visitor economy is dependent on the high street, time to recover is needed.

Currently, venues are shutting part-time due to labour shortages and less demand, each compromising the other. In summing up, will the Minister say what discussions he has had about introducing the youth mobility visa for EU citizens so that labour supply can continue? In York, labour vacancies are up 10% from August, with 3,400 jobs needing filling. Skill shortages are hitting York’s offer.

We do not just want recovery; we want reform. The hope lies in indie York: 65% of York’s retail offer is by independents. The challenge is that the retail space vacated by the big chains occupies 9.3% of the city. We need these large empty spaces repurposed for independent social enterprises and what Labour in York has envisaged: a family-friendly York. A family-friendly York demands reform. Since being elected, I have campaigned for York to be a family-friendly city. Local families do not visit: it is too expensive, with too few child-friendly spaces, unless you have the means to pay, and too few public toilets. Worse, the night-time economy clashes with the day, so parents simply do not want their children to come into town.

Imagine Government steering local authorities to become family-friendly places where children can play and parents can relax. Urban95 or the UN child friendly cities initiative can drive this. It is good for families, good for economies and good for our environment. York is perfect for that. Imagine safe routes in, so that children can enjoy the journey and the destination. Imagine the urban landscape designed for children and families. Imagine no hen and stag as they are planned out. Imagine spaces to play, explore, learn and create. York Explore, our libraries, have their Lego tables and cafes. York Museums Trust, now with free entry, has created spaces. York Archaeological Trust is launching digs for families to learn together. We have churches, empty shops, and even Parliament Street, just waiting to hear the laughter of children and welcome families. I trust that the Government will look at family-friendly York as an example of how we can really invest in the future generation and the future of our high streets.

17:00

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your watchful chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I must first put on record how brilliant my local businesses across Hyndburn and Haslingden are—I have had the pleasure of visiting quite a few of them in my campaign to shop local—but there is no doubt that our high streets have struggled.

The decline of high streets across the country in the last few decades is well documented. As our shopping habits have changed, first towards shopping at supermarkets and megastores, and then online, many of our high streets and their small shops have been repeatedly battered by the headwinds.

In my part of the world, beautiful Lancashire, the decline of the high street has been felt particularly hard by local people. Many of our high streets, which used to teem with independent stores, have been unable to innovate with the new reality, and have become shells of their former selves. In some places, charity and betting shops are now the most numerous, while other shops sit empty or change hands frequently. Along with that loss of amenity, the decline in our high streets has been enhanced by an equal loss of civic pride by some.

We now stand at a crossroads. Down one path lies a continuing decline of high streets and the inevitable conversion of many shops into flats or houses. That will be an acceptance that there is simply nothing that we can do but manage the decline and death of our high streets. The other path leads to a new, innovative model for the high streets, which sees them thriving once again. It is down that second path that I believe the Government are heading.

I know that today’s motion states,

“That this House has considered support for UK high streets”,

but that is incomplete. A more appropriate motion would be, “That this House has considered support for UK high streets and the effort and investment made by this Government in saving them”, for that is a reality.

I have witnessed, all too much, how my Labour councils have let down and ignored my high streets and town centres. We need to review the support that has been given to local councils. There is the £3.6 billion towns fund, including a £1 billion pledge for the future high streets fund, £4.8 billion across the country in the levelling-up fund, the coronavirus job retention scheme and business interruption loan scheme, bounce back loans, business grants, the establishment of a retail sector council and a high streets task force to provide expert advice to adapt and thrive. That is just a snapshot. There are many other measures, such as business rates relief retail discounts, that I have not even mentioned.

I am confident that, when we get to the spending review, even more will be announced by the Chancellor to help businesses and our high streets. When people ask me what levelling up is, in practical terms, this is it. In my area of Hyndburn and Haslingden, these packages of support are having a real impact. I have been working with Hyndburn Council to prepare a levelling-up fund application to regenerate our town centres. That will translate into real improvement on the ground, felt by shoppers, shopkeepers, and visitors to our towns. I hope that bid will be looked on favourably.

However, it is not just about the money. To me, levelling up and supporting our high streets means supporting them to change their thinking, giving businesses the tools and support to innovate and embed a culture of enterprise, new thinking and competition to challenge the online retailers. To help with that, I have lobbied hard for Hyndburn Council to employ an economic development officer to support businesses. That has finally been accepted. With that post now in place, we have someone at the council dedicated to supporting our local businesses and high streets. That is vitally important.

Equally important is restoring the sense of civic pride and community responsibility for our high streets and town centres. It is vital that we combine localism and levelling up to take advantage of the investment and help from Government to restore civic pride and create unique and vibrant high streets that people choose as their destination, rather than always just clicking a mouse.

17:04

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for securing this debate. It is a great opportunity for us all to highlight our amazing local high streets.

The last debate that I led in this place, back in March 2020 before the pandemic, was on the impact of bank branch closures on the high street. Town centres were already struggling to remain vibrant in the face of changing shopping habits, reduced services and falling footfall. Nobody could have predicted the covid tsunami that they were about to face, making tackling those challenges far more urgent. Sir John Timpson, who led the high streets experts panel in 2018, said that we have seen 10 years of change in one go, with all the negatives but without the positives. It has been absolutely brutal, with well-kent names falling like dominoes and nothing to replace them.

As spending on online retailers accelerates, whatever plans we have to boost the high streets need to be turbocharged—something that maybe one of Jeff Bezos’s rockets could help with. It matters for the spirit and quality of our towns, but it is also important for our covid recovery. We know that money spent locally in high streets is money that stays in the local economy and is not left to languish in some offshore tax haven.

There is a need to level the playing field. I welcome one measure being explored by the Scottish Government—the possibility of a national digital sales tax, which would be well worth exploration much wider afield. Much work needed on support for high streets is, rightly, devolved—the more local the better, for finding solutions that work for any given town.

Scotland’s share of any funding pot for town centre regeneration must be devolved to the Scottish Government, so that they can pursue their well-considered plans. These measures include the town centre action plan, the “Scotland Loves Local” campaign and the focus on developing more 20-minute neighbourhoods—liveable, accessible places where people can meet their needs within a 20-minute walk. Direct funding, as this Government seem so increasingly keen to pursue, reduces the impact and cohesiveness of that kind of work, muddying the field to no one’s benefit. We need much more local decision making.

Although our high streets must evolve and adapt, the good news is that we see many towns successfully bucking trends and local businesses thriving, but in a time of crisis, we need decisive action, support and strong local leadership. Above all, finding the best way forward must involve the community. There is not a one-size-fits-all solution, as every town will have its own unique history and its own strengths and traditions. Communities must be consulted meaningfully and involved in plans at every stage. We need leadership from ourselves and from our local councils.

In my local area, in Penicuik, we have seen local leadership driving forward the business improvement district, which has been highly successful. We have seen a real change in that community over recent years, although there is much still be done. In the county town of Midlothian, Dalkeith—as a former council leader, I should declare an interest—we had a vision when I was council leader. I used to have meetings in the office. People would come into Midlothian House and would look out the window at the centre of Dalkeith and everyone would pretty much say, “Is there not something we can do about that?” We eventually said, “Yes, let’s do something about it. Let us start with a blank sheet of paper.” We started looking into feasibility studies. Unfortunately, it was opposed by the opposition at the time. Subsequent to the change of administration after the 2017 council elections in Scotland, those plans were effectively burned. The importance of looking at what we can do now is even more critical.

The town centre in Dalkeith has been neglected for years and urgently needs a clear plan to support its regeneration. Instead, something that resembles a dog’s dinner is being taken forward by the current council. Ideas have been developed by a local community group, One Dalkeith, which has genuinely reached out to the local community to engage and to take on board its thoughts and views. I urge the council to look back at what the community wants to see happening, rather than following through on its current plans to abandon Dalkeith by closing all the council offices there, in a move that would ultimately devastate the town centre.

Midlothian is a fantastic place. It is little wonder that it is one of the fastest growing parts of Scotland, if not the fastest growing. We need more homes—that is absolutely true—but we also need proper consideration of public spaces and facilities and the needs of our communities. The energy and talent of people who live and work in our communities must be harnessed as we rebuild, to make sure that our town centres and our communities can continue to thrive.

17:09

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for bringing forward this important debate. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) has said something of the Scottish context, and it is within that context that I address my first remarks. What happens when it comes to our high streets in Scotland is largely the responsibility of the Scottish Government. My party and I are keen on a policy that tackles the impact of non-domestic or business rates, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers). These charges are making high street businesses simply not competitive with online ways of buying and selling.

Under devolved powers, rates could be reduced dramatically or abolished altogether for particular forms of retail businesses on our high streets. The Scottish Government set the business rates for businesses centrally and we know the rates are an incredibly important income for Scottish councils. If they were unilaterally got rid of or reduced, Scottish councils would face a terrible funding problem. In the Scottish context, I suggest there should be a discussion between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. That could be echoed in the UK context, with a discussion between Her Majesty’s Government and the Local Government Association. There is genuine potential here.

As the hon. Member for Midlothian very wisely said, the income generated in our town centres is, in turn, spent in our town centres. It is banked in those town centres. In the highlands, we rely greatly on our tourism product. If town and village centres in the highlands are looking decrepit, run down or full of empty properties, frankly the tourists will not be enthused by that.

I had an alarming email today. Although it is not about a matter that is a direct responsibility of the Minister, I will share it. It is from Mr Andrew Mackay, the owner of three hotels in Caithness: The Norseman in Wick, The Pentland in Thurso and The Castletown in Castletown. Last year, his electricity costs for these three high street hotels were £76,764. In September, he had a quote that increased the cost of that electricity by £25,000, which is 33%. Today, he had a quote of an increase of £53,000, which is a 70% increase. Can you believe that, Ms Nokes? That takes his electricity bill for those three important town centre businesses from £76,764 a year to £130,000. He is faced with a problem that he does not know how he will cope with.

In fairness, that matter is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I will be writing to Her Majesty’s Treasury to say that we have a huge problem. We need to park party politics on this subject completely and utterly, because this is about power and the cost of power. If that is happening in my constituency, in a remote part of the highlands, it could be happening in constituencies all over the UK. We have to be very careful about this; it is a serious issue. One has unwelcome emails from time to time; this was one for me today.

17:13

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) on securing the debate.

Our high streets, the beating hearts of our neighbourhoods, are in danger, threatened by low footfall, an outdated model for business rates, the impact out out-of-town and online shopping and a Government who have failed to tackle the growing crisis. Against that challenging backdrop, I have a small kernel of hope to share, thanks to the visionary work of our Labour-led Stockton council and the odd handout from the Government as well.

To quote my good friend, Councillor Nigel Cooke:

“This is an existential threat we are facing. If people are not coming into town to shop at Debenhams because there is no Debenhams, there is no Marks & Spencer and so on, what are they going to come in to do?...You have to be proactive and have some ambition.”

Fortunately, Stockton council has ambition in bucketloads. It has bought the old Castlegate shopping centre so that it can be torn down, opening up space in the town centre to build a vast urban park, a library and a leisure centre, linking Stockton town centre with the beautiful waterfront of the River Tees.

[Matt Vickers]

I agree and I am sure the hon. Gentleman is about to tell us that it is a great thing that the Globe is reopening and coming back to the old high street, but would it not have been better if it had opened in 2012 and cost £4 million rather than opening this year and costing the best part of £30 million? Public money needs to be well spent.

[Alex Cunningham]

Public money does need to be well spent, and it was not exactly all public money that went to it, but that is another matter. I will not have anyone talking down my town and the ambition of our local council. The Globe is one of the finest art deco theatres in the country, and it has hosted everyone from the Beatles to Stevie Wonder—I know that appeals to my generation, rather than to some of the younger Members here. It has been refurbished and reopened, and it is the biggest venue between Newcastle and Leeds, so all the big acts are now following us into town.

Just a couple of weeks ago I visited Drake the bookshop to support Bookshop Day. Thanks to Stockton’s ambition, the bookshop has been able to expand. The council’s vision puts the wellbeing of our constituents at its heart, with the focus on supporting events, green space and independent shops more than paying off. Other local authorities are now knocking on Stockton’s door for the blueprints. Even Tory Ministers come to Stockton to see how it is done.

However, councils cannot be left to do it on their own. They should not have to spend so much time bidding to centralised funding pots. The administration of the £3.6 billion towns fund, for instance, still causes me serious concern. I can understand why Billingham in my constituency was deemed to be in greater need than Tory MPs’ towns, but I cannot understand why it has missed out.

[Sara Britcliffe]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alex Cunningham]

I will not, if the hon. Member does not mind.

A town in the previous Secretary of State’s constituency, which was 270th on the list, was successful. Yet Billingham was not, despite being much higher up on the list.

[Matt Vickers]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alex Cunningham]

No, I will not give way.

Many of the people who actually make our high streets great are crying out for urgent business reform, which is something the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) and I very much agree on. Again, here Labour has the necessary vision that the Government lack. Labour would scrap business rates altogether, and in the meantime we would freeze them and extend the threshold for small business rates relief next year. Labour would pay for these measures by increasing the UK digital services tax to 12%, making a more level playing field between online and bricks-and-mortar shops. There are solutions out there to make radical change, and I would be very pleased to show the Minister around my home town of Stockton so that he can see how it is done.

17:16

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for leading the debate, and I thank Members for the incredible contributions that have been made. It will come as no surprise that I wish to speak on behalf of my constituency, and indeed my home town of Newtownards. I am sure that the Minister is very keen to get over and have a look around. The previous Minister, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), visited Newtownards and was greatly impressed by what she saw.

This is a much-needed debate, given the impact of the past 18 months on our high streets. Many sections of society have suffered and seen financial losses, and unfortunately our local high streets most certainly fall into that category. I warmly welcome any action to help our local shops. Topshop, Thomas Cook, Peacocks and Edinburgh Woollen Mill are just a few examples of the companies that have gone into administration, and indeed the latter two had branches in my constituency. I am pleased to say that we have been able to fill those gaps and retain our position as a high street that many people want to come and see. It is full of independent shops and family businesses. It has an array of shops that many people wish to visit, and they will keep coming back.

It has been noted that over 726,000 people have lost their job since the start of the pandemic. Many people have become a little too handy with online shopping, and they forget about the jobs that are lost as a result. I know that the Government have set out a strategic plan for how we can move forward. The Government are also committed to the levelling-up process, and I have asked the Minister many questions about that in the Chamber. They are very keen to ensure that the process happens not only down here in the south of England, or even in the north of England, but across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and it should do because that is what we wish to see.

I will take a moment to talk about what we are doing back home in Northern Ireland to help our high streets. I hope that others can take note and discuss similar schemes. The Economy Minister, Gordon Lyons, who is responsible for enterprise, trade and industry, has introduced the “Spend Local” voucher scheme, allowing those over 18 to apply for pre-paid cards worth £100, which must be spent on the high street and not online. So we go out of our house, walk down the path and spend the money on the high street. People are allowed to use this in shops on the high street and across the whole constituency, so I hope that those cards will be used in shops that have struggled throughout the pandemic and I greatly welcome the step taken by the Minister in Northern Ireland. It is my understanding that some people have already started using their cards. A lady came into the office the other week and she was one of the first ones, with card number 2,011—there are potentially cards for 1.3 million people. It is quite a massive scheme.

My office has helped many elderly people register for their cards and has encouraged them to shop locally on our high street. The money was designed to rejuvenate the independent businesswoman who has taken a hammering in the last year and I am excited to see the dividends of the scheme, which will remind people of the joy of spending locally, and to see local people putting their money back into our economy rather than into Amazon’s offshore tax havens, which grieves me greatly. Get it back into the high street, get it back into the local shops and make sure that happens.

In my constituency of Strangford, Newtownards won high street of the year 2020—a brilliant achievement given the challenging times. We have a fantastic high street, which needs support from the Government locally in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but we have been able to do something very specific and helpful and he may wish to comment on that. People’s livelihoods and jobs depend on this and we must do more to encourage people to spend in our local high streets as opposed to online. Whether that is through retail, travel, hospitality, theatre and so much more, it is crucial that our local businesses know we are there for them and they have our full support.

I also welcome the Government’s levelling-up agenda, which is set to answer the plea of left-behind towns. The strategy also aims to invest more finance in cities, towns and rural areas and give businesses more scope as to how investment is made. When the Minister sums up, I look forward to hearing how he can help high streets through the levelling-up process across the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and provide the reassurance that the Government will do all they can to get our high streets back up and running, and introduce schemes to allow them to diversify and do what some of my local shops have done and set up parallel online shops based in the high street. That has happened on several occasions in the past year. I think there is a dual method. We want to see people back on the high street and the footprint again. When we see that and people spending their money, the shops will rejuvenate. That is what I would love to see. In our town, we have that—thank the Lord for it—but I look forward to hearing what the Minister says.

17:22

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for bringing the debate to the Chamber and all hon. Members who have contributed for championing their local places. I have certainly picked up a few more places that I would like to visit. The play that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned certainly has a lot of appeal for me with my family. I am sure they would enjoy coming to that. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) spoke so passionately that he could not help but sell his city, which is also going on the list of places to visit in the holidays.

I am sure that all hon. Members will be visiting my constituency very soon when they come to COP26, which is being held in Glasgow Central. Many of the local businesses in Glasgow Central are a bit nervous about that and about the road closures and the disruption that may be caused within the city. So that is all the more encouragement for hon. Members, when they come to Glasgow Central in a few weeks, to go out and spend their money in the local high streets round about. Finnieston is on the doorstep of the SEC complex, with many excellent independent shops and restaurants where it will be easy enough for hon. Members to spend money. Lots of local high streets in Glasgow have seen an uptick in visitors, as people have stayed more at home in the pandemic and have not been travelling, either further away to other parts of the UK or into the city centre.

Of course, there is a different challenge for city centres and how they rejuvenate after covid, having lost many big shops such as Debenhams, which is a huge retail space in Glasgow city centre. It is now a challenge for all of us to decide how to refill those spaces and rejuvenate the city centre. I am glad that Glasgow city council has a strong city centre strategy that looks to bring people back in to live in our city, but we need the services that come with that as well—the schools, the nurseries, the access to medical services and all those local things that make a community a home. That, and how we make it work properly, is the challenge for all of us at the moment.

I am glad to see that part of the city centre that has long been neglected—the historic High Street of Glasgow, the heart of Glasgow—has its own high street action plan. If anyone happens to be in Glasgow this weekend, ‘Mon The High Street Day is a series of events down Saltmarket and the High Street to promote that historic part of the city and see it come back to life. But there needs to be a whole strategy and approach to make sure that that can happen in each of our towns and cities. It will not happen on its own; it needs a wider framework.

Some of that is about changing how we move around our cities—getting people cycling and walking rather than driving through. Govanhill and Victoria Road have recently had cycle lanes installed. Some traders were upset about the loss of parking spaces but actually it has allowed businesses such as the Transylvania café to offer food and music, so people stop, stay and spend their money. We need to reimagine how those spaces in our towns and cities work to encourage people to stay and enjoy them, because it is about more than just retail.

The SNP supports the digital sales tax; for many years we have had the small business bonus scheme, which has removed many businesses from the business rates system, allowing them to start up, develop and grow their businesses. We are very keen on the 20-minute neighbourhood solution, which will allow many people to use their neighbourhoods more. All that is seen in the wider economic context. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was quite right to point out the impact on businesses of increased electricity and gas bills. I was speaking to the Federation of Small Businesses just today about that. The FSB is looking for support from the Government in the coming Budget not just for individuals, for whom this is very serious for heating and eating, but for businesses, which need to be able to open their doors, produce the materials that they sell and operate their businesses on our high street. They face a very difficult winter and need all the support they can have.

The Government have the opportunity to keep the VAT reduction. They reduced VAT during covid but many businesses in tourism and hospitality did not get the benefit because they were closed. If the Government keep the reduction rather than increase VAT, that would boost our hospitality and tourism sector. I will also make a plug for an issue close to your heart, Ms Nokes, of adding the beauty and hairdressing sector, because it could do with that VAT boost to bring people into towns and cities.

We have seen the £20 universal credit cut, which will take money out of local people’s pockets and out of their high streets. The national insurance rise is a tax on jobs, too. I challenge the Minister to respond to those issues, to help out the high streets and to make sure that people have money to spend in their local shops this winter.

17:27

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Ms Nokes. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) on securing this debate and on setting out so powerfully the impact of online retailers on high streets and the lack of a level playing field. It was a pleasure to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) about the long-term challenges that high streets have been facing since before the pandemic. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke about pleas from her local businesses to change the taxation system, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) spoke with great passion about his local independent shops and the work of his local Labour council.

Members from all parts of the House have spoken about the personal importance of their local high streets, and I will not be any different. The high streets in my constituency are at the heart of our communities. The people I represent value and benefit from the shops at Oldfields Circus, Greenford Broadway and Greenford Avenue, to name but a few; and Pitshanger Lane, which deservedly won the title of London’s best high street at the Great British High Street competition in 2015, is home to more than 50 independent traders. The chair of the local traders association, John Martin, is a tireless advocate for them and high streets across Ealing and beyond.

As we have heard here and I am sure Members in the main Chamber are making clear as we speak, the health and vitality of our high streets is worth fighting for, but the Government are ignoring pleas from many high streets across the country for the support they need to thrive, and in some cases, simply to survive. High street businesses and those who work in them need the Government to act. As USDAW has made clear, that is crucial to those working in high street retail, who have experienced job insecurity for some time, only made worse by the covid-19 pandemic. USDAW has called for an urgent recovery plan for the retail sector that involves Government, retailers and workplace representatives working together to address the structural challenges facing the sector. It is absolutely right to make it clear that a key part of any plan must be fundamental reform of the system of business rates.

It should serve as an urgent call to action for this Government that the British Retail Consortium’s retailer survey found that business rates were a factor behind two in three store closures in the last two years. While high-street stores are feeling the burden of business rates, their online competitors, which typically pay far lower business rates on their warehouses, have seen their profits boom, especially during the pandemic. The current system of business rates is simply not fit for the 21st century. It punishes investment and entrepreneurship and it hits the high street.

We thought that the Conservatives might have realised this, as their manifesto at the last election promised that they would

“cut the burden of tax on businesses by reducing business rates.”

They promised that that would be done via “fundamental reform” of the system, yet we read reports in the newspapers that the Chancellor has been too busy to pursue a business rates review. Rumours abound that the Government may even abandon the promise of a fundamental review of business rates altogether, so I would welcome the Minister taking this opportunity to quash those rumours. I urge him to confirm that the review of business rates is still going ahead, that its conclusions will include proposals for fundamental changes, and that those changes will be announced in the coming weeks.

We need that change because the business rates system is antiquated and not fit for the current economy. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chancellor, has set out, if we were in government today, as an intermediary step we would freeze business rates until the next revaluation, benefiting sectors such as retail and hospitality that are hit the most by this tax. We would raise the threshold for small business rate relief to give small businesses a discount on their business rates bills for 2022-23, ahead of more fundamental reform, and pay for that in the short term by increasing the digital services tax to 12% for one year and, in the longer term, with a higher global minimum rate of corporate tax for large multi- nationals.

Beyond that, a Labour Government would scrap business rates and introduce a new system that would incentivise investment, promote entrepreneurship and reward businesses that move into empty premises—and yes, it would involve large online tech giants contributing more. Both the immediate support we propose and our approach to fundamental reform would shift the burden of business tax towards the online giants. It would target the greatest support at high-street businesses that need it most, and it would support jobs for people across our country. That is what it looks like to tax fairly, spend wisely and get the economy firing on all cylinders, and that is what our high streets need.

17:31

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) on securing this debate on the future of our high streets. I thank her for speaking so passionately on behalf of our constituents. I strongly agree with her comments about the importance of our high streets in tackling loneliness and connecting communities.

Without a doubt, the covid pandemic has wrought some heavy blows on both our high streets and our wider economy. As the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) said, changes that were already taking place before the pandemic have been magnified. We have seen profound changes to the way we shop, live and work right across the UK. None the less, we know that our high streets are resilient and adaptable, and we are committed to helping them not just recover but thrive and flourish in the weeks and months ahead.

That is why we have committed unprecedented levels of support and funding for high-street businesses throughout the pandemic—£352 billion in total, to help those negatively impacted by covid-19. That package includes £60 billion of business rates relief, business grants, the coronavirus loan schemes and the coronavirus job retention scheme, which has supported more than 90,000 jobs in Lewisham East, as well as the deferral of income tax payments. Another £2 billion was made available to local authorities in additional restriction grants, with councils encouraged to focus that support on the sectors that remained closed the longest.

[Mr Sheerman]

Does the Minister think that the Government missed an opportunity when they introduced the plastic bags charge, which has produced millions? We were promised that the money would flow into communities and the regeneration of local towns, so why has most of that money flown into the back pockets of the supermarkets? Why can we not have that money to regenerate local businesses?

[Neil O'Brien]

I fear that the hon. Gentleman is going to take us on a diversion. The tax has been hugely successful. It has eliminated billions and billions of plastic bags from our planet. We can take some of the other points that he raises offline.

In Lewisham, the support that we have introduced has equated to about £40 million in business grants to small businesses as well as those in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. Lewisham council estimates that it will have awarded £55 million in business rate relief to local businesses between March 2019 and March 2022. A further £34 million has been provided to the council in local restriction support grants and Christmas support payments. I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewisham East agrees that that funding was invaluable for businesses during an incredibly difficult 18 months.

Earlier this year, we also announced the £56 million welcome back fund, building on the success of the reopening high streets safely fund, to give people reassurance that they can shop and socialise in a covid-secure way. The hon. Lady is, I am sure, aware that more than £250,000 was awarded to Lewisham council through the welcome back fund. I am delighted that the local authority and businesses themselves have been able to take advantage of that support. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) talked about the benefits it brought in her constituency, too.

That funding has been complemented by a commercial property eviction moratorium, which has now been extended to 25 March 2022, helping high street shops hit hard in recent months to stay afloat and weather the storm. To provide more certainty to tenants and landlords, the Government plan to legislate for a process of binding arbitration, following a call for evidence launched in April and engagement with business owners. The legislation will ringfence debt relief accrued from March 2020 for commercial tenants impacted by covid-19, and it will introduce a system of binding arbitration for landlords and tenants that cannot agree between themselves on agreeing, deferring or waiving rent arrears.

All that adds up to a concerted effort to protect businesses and livelihoods during and after the pandemic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) said, the Treasury has indeed thrown the kitchen sink at backing our high streets over the past two years. Even before covid-19, however, it is important to stress that the Government had demonstrated their commitment to supporting our high streets to embrace change, to respond to the evolving patterns of consumer demand, to create a vibrant, mixed-use town and city centres, and to drive investment in parts of the country that historically have been underserved.

Our future high streets fund, for example, supports 72 places from Wolverhampton to Woolwich, just down the road from the constituency of the hon. Member for Lewisham East, with a share of more than £830 million. That funding is being used by councils to deliver ambitious plans to regenerate high streets while helping them to recover from the pandemic.

More broadly, our towns fund is supporting 101 places to bring forward schemes to spur growth and to breathe new life into communities, while creating thousands of jobs. We can already see some brilliant examples of how that fund is helping to transform those towns across the country. Southport has turned its old theatre into a convention centre, a state-of-the-art venue, in an attempt to bring in more than 1 million new visitors every year.

[Mr Sheerman]

Will the Minister come to Huddersfield to—

[Neil O'Brien]

I am afraid I will take no further interventions—[Interruption.]

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not taking interventions.

[Neil O'Brien]

Despite being a Huddersfield boy, I cannot take further interventions, because we are pushed for time.

In Worcester, support from our future high streets fund is being used to renovate several iconic and beautiful buildings, including the local corn exchange, driving footfall and preserving the community’s heritage. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn and Haslingden (Sara Britcliffe) also talked about the good that such schemes are doing in her constituency. Those are the kind of transformative projects that hold the key to restoring local pride and laying the foundations for our long-term economic recovery. That is exactly what underpins our levelling-up fund, which will be available to local areas across the UK.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Neil O'Brien]

I am afraid I cannot take further interventions as I am a bit pressed for time. I am so sorry.

We will invest £4.8 billion in the levelling-up fund to build the next generation of roads, bridges, railway stations and 5G networks to connect communities and businesses faster than ever before. However, significant though such interventions and all that spending are, I think we all agree that, no matter the scale of Government investment, money alone cannot solve all the problems that businesses on our high streets face.

That is one reason why my Department has recently published the “Build Back Better High Streets” strategy, which has a bold and imaginative vision for the future of our high streets—a future in which businesses and communities have the freedoms and flexibilities to innovate and adapt to a new post-covid world. The strategy forms a key part of the Prime Minister’s plan to level up. It will deliver visible changes to local areas and communities across England, transforming derelict buildings, supporting businesses, cleaning up our streets, improving the public realm and supporting a renewed sense of community pride for future and current generations.

To enable places to adapt and to reinvent their high streets, the strategy builds on some of the earlier planning changes that we have already made. We introduced the temporary permitted development right for moveable structures so that pubs and restaurants could move the indoors outdoors using marquees and canopies. I am sure hon. Members across the UK will have seen the effects of that. We have acted to make it easier to host market stalls, car boot sales and fairs for longer, without needing a planning application. We are consulting on making those changes in relation to marquees and markets permanent.

In 2020, we made a use classes order creating a new class E, which gives businesses the freedom to adapt and reinvent themselves. An office can easily become a café, a shop, health surgery or nursery without requiring planning permission. To support high streets to become places where people shop and spend their leisure time but also live, we have created a new permitted development right that allows the creation of much needed new homes in the hearts of our towns and cities. This right helps to repurpose vacant buildings, avoiding premises being left empty for long periods. Our further permitted development rights allow buildings to be extended upwards to create new homes and the demolition of vacant and redundant shops and offices so that they can be replaced with quality homes right in the hearts of our towns and cities.

I again thank the hon. Member for Lewisham East for her excellent speech and all the other Members who contributed to this excellent debate. The Government remain steadfast in our commitment to help our high streets adapt and thrive as they recover from the pandemic so that they can play their part in levelling up communities across the country. Indeed, my Department, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, has a fundamental role to play in delivering this agenda. I know that I speak not just for myself but for the whole of our ministerial team in saying that we are committed to working with Members from across the House to create the stronger, fairer, more united kingdom we all want to see as we emerge from the pandemic. We also want to work hand-in-hand with local authorities and businesses to make that vision a reality.

I have not had time to pick up on every point that hon. Members have made or all the excellent projects that they promoted during the debate, but I will be happy to do so offline afterwards. I hope that, together, we can ensure that our high streets remain the beating heart of our communities for generations to come.

17:41

[Janet Daby]

I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to today’s debate. Many vital concerns have been raised. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) talked about her thriving high streets, while acknowledging that there have been struggles and the need to improve rural and coastal areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) talked about the impact of the support that is needed for high streets because the pandemic has affected poorer areas, which cannot be denied, but also about the cuts that her council has experienced and the impact that that has had on her area. Lewisham council has also experienced significant cuts of £200 million since 2010.

The hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) spoke about the decades of challenges for high streets and agreed about the need to tackle the outdated business rates regime and crime in high streets where shops have closed down. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke about high streets, closed shops and the need to bring life back to those areas. She spoke passionately about bringing families back into the area; where there are families and children, there is always a lot of spending because children make the wonderful demands that they do.

The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) spoke about the well-documented decline in high streets, which are a shadow of their former selves, and the loss of civic pride. I hope that those areas win the levelling-up funding they have bid for. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) spoke about bank closures and said that money spent locally stays locally; I could not agree more. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) also spoke about money needing to be spent locally; more significantly, he spoke about the astounding increase in electricity bills that hotels have received and how that desperately needs to be addressed. Again, I could not agree more.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) spoke about his excellent Labour council and the ambitious urban park development that is going on there—all gratitude to the council. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about how high streets have suffered and how unemployment has increased. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), whose area I know quite well, spoke about the loss of many big shops, but is confident that the city has a strong strategy for improvement.

There has been much agreement in the Chamber on many of the issues that I and others have raised, and we agree there is a need for the decline not to spiral out of control. The BBC reported that, in the first six months of this year, about 50 shops were closing every single day on our high streets. I sincerely hope that, when the statistics come in for the second half of this year, the circumstances will have changed.

I had hoped to hear the Minister talk about business rates and the review of business rates. That theme was very obvious in many of the speeches and in the questions that were asked. I hope that he will return to his Department and review this, because we need a modern form of taxation—one that means that businesses do not just survive but soar. I would like him to go back and produce measures to ensure that jobs are on the increase and strengthened and that entrepreneurs are rewarded. We all have high streets that we want to be proud of, in towns and cities and rural areas and coastal areas, and we all want to see continued improvements in our area.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered support for UK high streets.

17:46

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Written Statements

Tuesday 19 October 2021

Trade and Co-operation Agreement: Engagement with Civil Society and Business Organisations

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Written Statements

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

My noble Friend, the Minister of State in the Cabinet Office (the right hon. Lord Frost CMG), has today made the following written statement:



As the trade and co-operation agreement (TCA) is a broad agreement that touches on the lives of people across the UK, the Government ran a public consultation on Government engagement with business and civil society groups on implementation of the TCA. The consultation was open for seven weeks from 9 August 2021 to 21 September 2021.



It focused on how to best use the domestic advisory group and civil society forum, the two formal engagement channels provided for in the TCA.



Today, after considering comments received from various stakeholders, including business associations and civil society groups, the Government are publishing their official response to the consultation in Parliament and on www.gov.uk.



The Government have also launched an expression of interest campaign to determine membership of the domestic advisory group and civil society forum. The expression of interest, published today on www.gov.uk, will run until 9 November.



We are preparing for the domestic advisory group to meet for the first time this year, shortly after the closure of the expression of interest campaign. The Government are in discussions with the European Commission to finalise the date for the first civil society forum. We are prepared for the forum to meet at the end of this year but acknowledge that it can take place in February 2022 if both parties agree.

[HCWS328]

Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Hands)]

I am today providing an update on the UK’s CCUS cluster sequencing process which was launched in May this year. Carbon capture, usage and storage, or CCUS, will be essential to meeting our net zero ambitions and will be an exciting new industry to capture the carbon we continue to emit and revitalise the birthplaces of the first industrial revolution.



The Prime Minister’s ten-point plan established a commitment to deploy CCUS in a minimum of two industrial clusters by the mid-2020s, and four by 2030 at the latest. Our aim is to use CCUS technology to capture and store 20 to 30 MtCO2 per year by 2030, forming the foundations for future investment and potential export opportunities. CCUS will be crucial for industrial decarbonisation, low-carbon power, engineered greenhouse gas removal technologies and delivering our 5GW by 2030 low-carbon hydrogen production ambition.



Our cluster sequencing process, which has, through the CCS infrastructure fund, £1 billion to provide industry with the certainty required to deploy CCUS at pace and at scale, has completed the first phase of the evaluation of the five cluster submissions received by my Department.



I am today confirming that the Hynet and East Coast clusters have been confirmed as Track 1 clusters for the mid-2020s and will be taken forward into Track 1 negotiations. If the clusters represent value for money for the consumer and the taxpayer then subject to final decisions of Ministers, they will receive support under the Government’s CCUS programme. We are also announcing the Scottish cluster as a reserve cluster if a back-up is needed. A reserve cluster is one which met the eligibility criteria and performed to a good standard against the evaluation criteria. As such, we will continue to engage with the Scottish Cluster throughout phase 2 of the sequencing process, to ensure it can continue its development and planning. This means that if Government choose to discontinue engagement with a cluster in Track 1, we can engage with this reserve cluster instead.



Deploying CCUS will be a significant undertaking; these are new major infrastructure projects for a new sector of the economy and carry with them significant risks to deliver by the mid-2020s. Government will continue to play a role in providing long-term certainty to these projects to manage these risks and bring forward the UK’s first CCUS clusters.



We remain committed to helping all industrial clusters to decarbonise as we work to reach net zero emissions by 2050, and we are clear that CCUS will continue to play a key role in this process. Consequently, the Government continue to be committed to Track 2 enabling 10Mtpa capacity operational by 2030. This puts these places—Teesside, the Humber, Merseyside, north Wales and the north-east of Scotland—among the potential early super-places which will be transformed over the next decade.

[HCWS325]

Finance Bill 2021-22

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)]

The Finance Bill will be published on 4 November. Explanatory notes on the Bill will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office and placed in the Libraries of both Houses on that day. Copies of the explanatory notes will also be available on gov.uk.

As usual, a full copy of the Budget resolutions will be made available after the Chancellor’s Budget statement on 27 October. This includes resolutions made under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 for those measures that are expected to come into effect ahead of Finance Bill Royal Assent.

In line with the approach to tax policy making set out in the Government’s documents “Tax policy making: a new approach”, published in 2010, and “The new Budget timetable and the tax policy making process”, published in 2017, the Government published draft legislation for Finance Bill 2021-22 on 20 July 2021, which is available on gov.uk. Further legislation was also published on 20 and 21 September 2021. The Government remain committed to legislating for these measures, subject to confirmation at Budget in the usual way.

[HCWS330]

Armed Forces Pay

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

I am today announcing the Government’s decision on pay for the armed forces for 2021-22.

The Government recognise that public sector workers play a vital role in the running of our public services, including in their remarkable commitment to keeping the public safe in the continuing fight against covid-19.



The Government received the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) report on 2021 pay for service personnel up to and including one-star rank on 21 July 2021. This has been laid before the House today and published on www.gov.uk.



The Government value the independent expertise and insight of AFPRB and takes on board the useful advice and principles set out in response to the Government’s recommendations outlined in the report.



As set out at the spending review (2020), there will be a pause to headline pay rises for the majority of public sector workforces in 2021-22. This is in order to ensure fairness between public and private sector wage growth, as the private sector was significantly impacted by the covid-19 pandemic in the form of reduced hours, supressed earnings growth and increased redundancies, while the public sector was largely shielded from these effects. This approach will protect public sector jobs and investment in public services, prioritising the lowest paid, with those earning less than £24,000—full-time equivalent—receiving a minimum £250 increase. The pause ensures we can get the public finances back onto a sustainable path after unprecedented government spending on the response to covid-19.



The AFPRB has recommended the following:



a £250 uplift for all members of the armed forces earning less than £24,000, where X-Factor is excluded from this salary calculation;

an increase in accommodation charges of 1.7% in line with the increase in the actual rents for housing component of CPI, not to be backdated; and

other targeted eligibility changes to some categories of recruitment and retention payment.



The Government accept the AFRPB’s recommendations on accommodation charges and recruitment and retention payments in full. However, the Government do not accept the AFPRB’s recommendation to exclude X-Factor from the low earner salary calculation as X-Factor is a component of the overall military salary. Instead the Government will implement a £250 pay uplift for all regular and reserve service personnel earning less than the equivalent of £24,000 per year inclusive of X-Factor. This rise will be implemented in November 2021 salaries, and be backdated to 1 April 2021. Service personnel have also continued to have access to annual incremental progression where appropriate.



The Government recognise that there is a further discussion to be had over the use of the X-Factor for pay and salary comparability work. The armed forces reward and incentivisation review, recently announced in the integrated review’s “Defence in a Competitive Age” Command Paper, along with the AFPRB’s planned review of X-Factor in the 2023 pay round, will provide the opportunities to explore this topic in much greater depth.



The year 2021-22 has seen no waning in the important outputs of our Armed Forces. From continuing to support the national response to coronavirus, to the exceptional work of all those involved in the Afghanistan evacuations, all while maintaining our critical national defence outputs. It is for this reason I am pleased that, despite the unprecedented impact the pandemic has had on the nation’s finances, the Government have been able to act in the spirit of the AFPRB’s recommendations and demonstrate their commitment to looking after those who look after us.

[HCWS329]

Soil Health Action Plan for England

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

This statement follows the recent announcement made by my noble Friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park on 8 September 2021 on the Government’s commitment to publish a new soil health action plan for England and to outline further details on this upcoming plan.



Soil is a rich ecosystem and the soil health action plan will take a natural capital approach to improving its health by considering the numerous biological, chemical and physical attributes of soil. It will support sustainable management of soil by bringing together a range of actions to improve and protect the health of our soil. This will include delivering key ecosystem services and wider benefits and outcomes such as increased biodiversity, carbon storage, food production and flood mitigation. It will also provide certainty to farmers and land managers around the acceptable condition of all soil types.



The action plan will ensure England’s soil is sustainably managed by 2030 demonstrating leadership in delivering a coherent plan for soil health. It will focus on preventing soil degradation and improving soil health, and look at how land management practices and planning can be adapted to help protect soil from the impact of climate change.



The sustainable farming incentive is a key focus of the action plan and will support sustainable approaches to farm husbandry that deliver for the environment and improve soil health. This could include the introduction of herbal leys, and the use of grass-legume mixtures or cover crops. Healthy soil can also support farm productivity.



The action plan will include the development of a healthy soil indicator, soil structure monitoring methodology and a soil health monitoring scheme to help land managers and farmers track the health of our soil over time and the impact of their management practices. These actions will create a robust baseline from which we can monitor improvements in soil health, identify trends and support informed policy decisions, including any future environmental targets for soil health. The action plan will also outline how soil health improvements will help deliver against our wider environmental targets, including our historic 2030 target to halt the decline in species abundance.



The soil health action plan for England will provide a single, strategic approach to achieving these multiple outcomes and driving improved soil health across England, and we currently intend to consult on the framework next spring.

[HCWS326]

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Investigation Reports

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

On 27 July 2021, 2 September 2021 and today, 19 October 2021, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse published three of its investigation reports.



The reports relate to IICSA’s investigations into the extent of any institutional failures to protect children in the care of Lambeth Council from sexual abuse and exploitation as well as reporting on its investigation into child protection in religious organisations and settings. Today, it has also published a report regarding the institutional responses to allegations involving the late Lord Janner of Braunstone, QC.



I pay tribute to the strength and courage of the victims and survivors who have shared their experiences to ensure the inquiry can deliver its vital work.



Government will review these reports and consider how to respond to their content in due course. I would like to thank Professor Alexis Jay and her panel for their continued work to uncover the truth, identify what went wrong in the past and to learn the lessons for the future.



I have today laid these reports before the House and they will also be published on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS332]

Prison Staff Pay Award

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)]

I am today announcing the Government’s decision on pay awards for prison staff.

The Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) has made its recommendations for the 2021-22 pay award. The Government value the independent expertise and insight of the PSPRB and take on board the advice. Prison staff make an essential contribution to public service and their ongoing efforts, particularly in the challenging context of the covid-19 pandemic, have been greatly appreciated.

As such, I am today announcing that we are accepting in full the recommendations made by the review body for implementation in this financial year. For clarity these are recommendations 2, 3 and 4 on which the Government provided evidence to the PSPRB.

Accepting recommendations 2, 3 and 4 will deliver a pay rise for over half of our prison service staff, according to internal estimates. This pay award will be paid this autumn and will be backdated to 1 April 2021.

This award reflects the Government’s original proposals to the PSPRB which were developed in the context of the public sector pay pause for 2021-22, announced at the spending review (2020). The pay pause has enabled Government to protect public sector jobs and investment in public services, prioritising the lowest paid. The pay pause aims to assist in getting public finances back onto a sustainable path after unprecedented Government spending on the response to covid-19.

The PSPRB recommended that those with the lowest pay should be uplifted by £250. This means that all prison staff with a basic salary below £24,000 (on a full-time equivalent basis) should receive a consolidated pay award of £250. The Government have accepted this recommendation, recommendation 2, in full.

The Government have also accepted recommendations 3 and 4, meaning that eligible prison staff who have not reached the top of their pay band will also continue to receive progression pay of up to 5%. Of this group, some of our lowest paid staff are also eligible for the £250 uplift under recommendation 2.

The PSPRB also made a further two recommendations, recommendations 1 and 5, which are not applicable to the current financial year. These recommendations concern matters which fall outside of the PSPRB’s remit for the 2021-22 pay round. In the circumstances, while the Government are grateful for these additional recommendations, there is no obligation on the Government to formally respond, but we will consider them further.

The report has been laid before Parliament today and a copy is available as an attachment online. I am grateful to the chair and members of the review body for its report.

Attachments can be viewed online at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2021-10-19/HCWS331.

[HCWS331]

Draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)]

I have today published as a draft the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 and an accompanying draft explanatory memorandum. The draft regulations amend the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/ 2864), the “1999 regulations”.



This statutory instrument has two purposes. The first is to permit drivers who passed certain driving tests using a vehicle with automatic transmission to acquire the manual entitlement for that sub-category, provided that they already hold a manual licence for another category, such as a car. This brings licence upgrades for sub-categories, including the car and trailer combination, medium sized lorries and minibuses, together with their trailer towing entitlements, into line with the full lorry and bus or coach categories.



The second purpose of this SI is to reduce the engine size of motorcycles that can be used by candidates taking their A2 category test. This is for medium sized motorcycles that have an engine power up to 35KW. Candidates will be able to take their A2 test on a wider range of motorcycles that is more representative of the A2 class.



These are sensible and pragmatic changes and received widespread support when a public consultation was held.



Through this instrument the Government are modernising the regulations in the light of developments in engine technology, especially the trend towards electric vehicles, which almost always have automatic or semi-automatic transmission, and the increasing power produced by relatively small motorcycle engines.



The shortage of qualified lorry drivers is a matter of national importance. Although the reduction in the number of medium sized lorry tests resulting from this instrument is likely to be small, it will help to ease test demand. It should also help riders pass the A2 motorcycle test first time because they will be able to use a motorcycle that they are more comfortable and confident riding.



The instrument is being published in draft for 28 days before being laid for affirmative debate. This is required under paragraph 14 of schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 because part of the text in the 1999 regulations which the draft regulations amend includes amendments previously made under the European Communities Act 1972. The amendments to the 1999 regulations which were introduced under the European Communities Act were made by the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (the “2012 regulations”) and the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (the “2014 regulations”). Further details are contained in the annex to the draft explanatory memorandum on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS327]

New Railway Line: Bristol to Portishead

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)]

I have been asked by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, to make this written ministerial statement. This statement concerns the application made by North Somerset District Council under the Planning Act 2008 for the construction of a new railway on the trackbed on the former branch line from Bristol to Portishead.

Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make his decision within three months of receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) to extend the deadline and make a statement to the Houses of Parliament announcing the new deadline. The Secretary of State received the examining authority’s report on the Portishead branch line-MetroWest phase 1 development consent order application on 19 July 2021 and the current deadline for a decision was 19 October 2021.

The deadline for the decision is to be extended to 19 April 2022—an extension of six months—to allow further consideration of environmental matters.

The decision to set new deadlines is without prejudice to the decisions on whether to grant development consent for the above application.

[HCWS333]

Grand Committee

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Grand Committee

Tuesday 19 October 2021

Arrangement of Business

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:45

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, I will now open this session of the Grand Committee. Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others—it is hardly necessary to point that out—and to wear a face covering when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after five minutes if all Members have cast their votes in that time.

Organics (Equivalence and Control Bodies Listing) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:46

Moved by

[Lord Benyon]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Organics (Equivalence and Control Bodies Listing) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, for organic products imported from another country to be legally sold as organic in Great Britain they must be certified as organic by a third country or third-country control body that the UK has recognised as having equivalent or compliant standards.

The lists are currently contained within retained EU Commission Regulation EC number 1235/2008. Annexe III of this regulation lists third countries recognised as equivalent and gives the name and website of the competent authority for each country, along with a list of the control bodies operating in that country, their control body codes and websites. Annexe IV of the regulation lists third-country control bodies recognised as equivalent and gives the name, address, website, code numbers, applicable countries and approved product categories for each control body.

This statutory instrument was made to streamline the process of listing and accessing the details of the third countries and third-country control bodies that we recognise as compliant and equivalent for the purposes of UK organic regulations. The amendments made by this instrument do not constitute a policy change.

As the law stands, it would be necessary to pass a new SI to confirm recognition of a new country or control body, or for changes to existing recognition, such as changes to their name, website address or approved goods categories. With hundreds of organisations listed, this information can change frequently. When the UK was an EU member state, these changes were advised on by the European Commission and approved by representatives of the EU member states at the regulatory committee on organic production, not by the European Parliament.

Given the administrative nature of these changes, we believe that making numerous new SIs to reflect them would be disproportionate. The time taken to pass such SIs to update the lists would have a negative impact on trade in organics. Details held on these lists are necessary for port health authorities, local authorities and other relevant parties to ensure that the goods in question have been certified in a recognised third country or by a recognised third-country control body. The delay between the changes taking place and being reflected in legislation would result in discrepancies between the documents and legislation. This can cause disruption to trade, as even minor discrepancies may delay goods being checked at ports.

This SI will not alter the criteria according to which third countries and third-country control bodies are recognised. I would like to reassure the Committee that the process for allowing third-country products to be placed on the GB market as organic remains robust and follows highly technical criteria set out in the retained organics regulations: Council Regulation 834/2007 and Commission Regulations 889/2008 and 1235/2008. This SI simply seeks to move the lists currently referenced in legislation to the GOV.UK website, where they can be updated directly by officials. We will continue to uphold the high standards expected by UK consumers and businesses.

Our approach with this SI follows best practice in other policy areas, where minor amendments are made to lists on various topics without requiring an SI. For example, the register of protected geographical food and drink names, which determines what goods can be sold under particular names in GB, is updated by the Secretary of State on the advice of officials. These decisions are made by evaluating the merits of each case in accordance with criteria outlined in legislation. This change will also improve the accessibility of these lists for stakeholders by providing all the relevant information in a single location, removing the need to consult multiple pieces of legislation, a problem that stakeholders have raised in the past.

These proposed changes have been welcomed by stakeholders including UK port health authorities, UK organic control bodies—through the UK organic certifiers group—and the devolved Administrations at the UK organics four nations working group. International partners such as the United States Department of Agriculture have also welcomed the proposed changes.

The proposed lists on GOV.UK will be updated to reflect the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement, extending EU organic equivalence recognition until 31 December 2023 as agreed, without the need to pass an additional SI. Current UK legislation includes EU recognition only until 31 December 2021, so the lists will need to be amended before that date to be in line with the trade and co-operation agreement. If this SI does not pass, a separate instrument will be required to extend EU recognition to the end of 2023. If a new SI is not passed by the end of the year, that could cause a delay to trade and there would be a risk of political controversy.

A breach of our commitments under the TCA would potentially leave the UK open to retaliatory action from the EU, such as withdrawal of its recognition of UK organics standards, which would prevent GB organic goods from being sold in the EU. Given the importance of the EU market to UK organic producers, this would risk a severe impact on the sector and its contribution to the UK economy. The UK has committed to updating the lists of recognised third countries and third-country control bodies to reflect changes that occurred shortly before the end of the transition period but were not captured in the retained legislation. This includes adding, removing and amending some control bodies in Annexe III and Annexe IV.

Until this SI comes into effect, goods certified by those newly recognised control bodies risk rejection at the border and we also risk that goods certified by control bodies that are no longer recognised may enter the GB market. Delay to these changes would cause disruption to trade and risk a perception that we are in violation of our treaty obligations. Under the current terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, EU organics regulations continue to apply in Northern Ireland as they do in the EU. As such, Northern Ireland continues to use the list of recognised third countries and third-country control bodies in EU law and this SI will have no effect on trade in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for setting out the remit of the statutory instrument that is before us this afternoon. We have been greatly assisted by the 14th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which my noble friend will be aware has a number of outstanding concerns that I will raise.

Paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that

“instead of laying new statutory instruments for new recognitions or changes to existing recognitions, the law be amended”

in the way that my noble friend outlined. It concludes:

“This will save a considerable amount of officials’ and Parliamentary time and allow for greater speed in updating information.”


I do not think that Parliament has ever asked for less time to scrutinise legislation. As my noble friend will recall, when much of the legislation went through under the treaties and the Acts taking us out of the European Union, concern was expressed at the amount of parliamentary scrutiny that there would be.

My first question to my noble friend is this. Paragraph 10.1 specifically states:

“The changes to the listing of control bodies and third countries have been discussed with UK control bodies … and with the devolved administrations at the Organics Four Nations Working Group.”


I am interested to know whether that was just one meeting. Was there the opportunity for the devolved Parliaments and Governments to raise any concerns that they must have?

My noble friend will be aware that, in this very Room last week, the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee met to raise a number of issues. His department was mentioned, as there are, I think, 14 common frameworks that relate to it. I might be wrong, but I do not think that Parliament has seen a single one of those. Obviously, it is of great interest to us to see what has been agreed. I mention that as background. I would like to think that the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish nations have had the opportunity for both their Parliaments and Governments to raise any concerns that they had.

I turn briefly to the issues raised in appendix 3 of the 14th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—the exchange of letters with our honourable friend Victoria Prentis, in the other place, as Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has done the House a great service in pointing out its concerns. I would like to quote from the report:

“These Regulations replace a legislative process for updating a list of third countries and third country control bodies which are recognised as equivalent in relation to organic standards, with an administrative process.”


It concludes that

“there should be parliamentary oversight of updates to lists.”

Will my noble friend explain to us this afternoon why there is the need for such speed in this regard? Can he convince us that there has been proper parliamentary oversight of what was delegated to the Government to perform this?

The report goes on to cite a letter from the Lord President to the chairman of the committee, our noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts:

“I agree that it is important that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise significant changes in addition to streamlining processes to ensure that the regulatory system best serves the needs of British businesses and consumers.”


Obviously there was a long debate about equivalence at the time that the legislation went through. Noble Lords ought to know my admiration for the organic sector and its importance to the rural economy.

I conclude by again raising an issue that was raised by our noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts with our honourable friend Victoria Prentis. On page 30 of the report, the committee sets out again its concern that the decisions before us this afternoon have been removed from the oversight of Parliament by switching from a legislative to a purely administrative process. I am not entirely sure that my noble friend has set out the context for why we will not in future be able to look at these statutory instruments, albeit briefly, or why we are losing the parliamentary oversight, which seems to be the nub of the concern expressed in the 14th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

16:00

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to this SI. I thank him and his officials for the useful briefing that they took the time to provide to me and to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. As has been said, the SI allows third countries equivalence on organic produce without the need for the time-consuming process of passing secondary legislation on each occasion. The power now rests with the Secretary of State to decide.

Paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that changes to the lists of countries and produce

“will be communicated to relevant stakeholders in a timely manner”.

Can the Minister say exactly what “a timely manner” is? Will the list always be updated immediately after equivalence is granted, or will there be occasions when this may take longer?

I note that no impact assessment was prepared for this SI, as the changes are said to be merely administrative. I am sympathetic towards streamlining procedures relating to legislation but do not believe that Parliament should be bypassed in all cases, especially when trade agreements are being considered.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has already raised my next point. The chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am also a member, wrote to Minister Prentis challenging the assumption that the new administration process was merely technical and would have low impact. The committee took the view that making an equivalence decision on a third country would almost certainly be more important than suggested and felt that removing the oversight of Parliament by switching from a legislative to a purely administrative process was a concern. In her response, Minister Prentis indicated that

“when a third country applies for equivalence recognition for the purpose of organics trade, it must provide all necessary information, including details of its control system and production standards, on the basis of which a decision can be made … recognition is limited to … three years. The Secretary of State may recognise a third country as having equivalent organic standards only once they are satisfied that these criteria for recognition have been met … Additionally, a third country recognition is generally part of a wider trade agreement, which would require Parliamentary ratification”.

If Parliament is to be involved in a trade agreement with a third country, why cannot it be involved in that country being added to the list for organic equivalence, especially if that is going to be part of its trade agreement? Can the Minister indicate how many countries are likely to apply for organic equivalence which are not in negotiation for a wider trade agreement? This might help us to see just what the scale of the workload would be if each was to go through the statutory instrument process instead of the informal administrative process proposed today.

As the Minister said, there is a cut-off date for reassessment of 23 December 2023. What will happen after that date? Will this be a cliff edge, or will there be renegotiations prior to that date?

A number of countries are in negotiations for trade agreements with the UK. How can the public be assured that the very high standards that they currently enjoy on organics will not be lowered during negotiations? I remain concerned that this speeding up of the administrative process has no legislative grounding and look forward to the Minister’s response and possible reassurance.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI and for the helpful briefing that he organised beforehand. On the face of it, this seems to be an innocuous change, but, like other noble Lords, I do not feel that it is quite as straightforward as it first appears. I therefore have a number of questions that I want to raise.

First, we have a strong and blossoming organic sector in the UK and it is important that we protect the very high standards that consumers expect of organic products. In particular, it is vital that the UK organics market cannot be undercut by inferior products from third countries claiming to be of the same organic standards. When this was debated in the Commons, the Minister, Victoria Prentis, made it clear that organic trade between the UK and any third country in the future will be the subject of the provision of free trade agreements or treaties.

This immediately rang alarm bells because, as we have seen with other trade deals, most notably the one with Australia, the Government have been prepared to sell out our high food standards when it suits them to have a wider trade deal. Can the Minister clarify the status of our current organic standards? If, as he says, they are set out in retained EU legislation, could they be disregarded in a future trade deal?

Victoria Prentis also said that Parliament would have oversight of those trade deals that might impact organics. Can the Minister clarify whether this is the same oversight that exists for all other trade deals, on which Parliament has in truth had no real say and, as we all know, the views of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which was set up to act as a mediator, if you like, are widely disregarded? Would organics be caught up in that same process?

Secondly, one of the main arguments put forward in the Explanatory Memorandum for the change is that ports, local authorities and businesses will be able to find an up-to-date list of the organic products that can be imported, as they will be listed on the government website rather than in legislation. I do not find this a compelling argument. I do not really see why this cannot be done in parallel with the original scrutiny process of making changes via SIs. For example, the Minister, Victoria Prentis, said that there were 13 countries, plus the EU, and about 55 control bodies currently listed. Despite what the EM says, I cannot imagine that there will be a swamp of new applications which will become unmanageable. If the concern is that those organisations change their addresses frequently, surely the solution would be to deal with this aspect of approval administratively rather than through the whole recognition of a new country or control body. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify why it is not possible to have those two systems working in parallel with the original parliamentary scrutiny that we have previously enjoyed.

Thirdly, as noble Lords have said, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn these regulations to the special attention of the House on the grounds that they are politically or legally important. We agree with its analysis

“that secondary legislation is indeed an appropriate vehicle for the type of changes that are the subject of this instrument, and that the Secretary of State’s general accountability to Parliament is not a suitable replacement for parliamentary oversight of individual decisions in this area.”

As my colleague Daniel Zeichner said in the Commons in agreeing with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee,

“We have all heard that argument and we know how well that works in practice. Frankly, we need something better than that.”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 21/9/21; col. 5.]


To press the Minister on this, if the SI goes through, how would we in practice hold the Secretary of State to account for listing an organic producer that we thought was in danger of undercutting our current organic standards? If a trade deal were signed that opened up the market for a third country for organics with lower standards, which of the many Secretaries of State would we be trying to hold to account anyway? Would it be the Secretary of State from Defra or from the Department for International Trade? Whom will we chase on these issues if such an event occurs?

Finally, I ask the Minister about the devolution implications of this SI. In an exchange in the Commons with David Doogan of the SNP, the Minister revealed that there is a long-standing disagreement about whether this issue is a devolved matter. Rather than getting legislative approval from the devolved Governments, as would be the normal process, the Government on this occasion sought the approval of the organics four nations working group. Does the Minister feel that this is a satisfactory way to proceed? What is being done to get the devolution disagreements back on track so that we can have the proper process of agreement in place?

While I am on that, there is some question over whether the UK organic certifiers have agreed to the proposals, as suggested in the Explanatory Memorandum. As my colleague Daniel Zeichner reported, they reported to him that their preferred form of scrutiny of future applications is an independent expert group, rather than their having to rely purely on the Secretary of State to make those decisions.

We feel that this SI is unsatisfactory in a number of regards and hope that the Minister will be prepared to reflect further, not only on our concerns but on those of the SLSC, which we feel were well made. I look forward to his response.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ interest in this issue and for the questions that have been asked. To start with, I say to my noble friend that this is of course a massive increase in scrutiny. When we were a member of the EU, this did not ever come before Parliament; it did not even come before the European Parliament but was dealt with by a committee in the Commission. Everything we are doing is open to all Members of both Houses to scrutinise in the ways in which they ingeniously will, holding Ministers and the Executive to account. There are mechanisms in it, which I will come to in a moment.

I will answer as many of the questions as I can. If I cannot, I will write to noble Lords. My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the frequency of meetings of the four nations working group. My understanding is that it meets every month, so this is a very regular affair. I will come on to the points my noble friend made about the slight tension between the devolved Governments.

I think my noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked whether SIs are appropriate, whether they are a frequently used vehicle for minor changes in other policy areas, and why they should not be used here if they are used for many minor matters. The changes to lists that would be covered under this updated process would be administrative changes based on technical evaluations; they do not represent a policy change. These include very minor changes to information required about control bodies, such as their name, legal address and other contact details. Although minor, these details are necessary for port health authorities, local authorities and other relevant parties to ensure that the goods in question have been certified in a recognised third country or by a recognised third-country body.

We are aware of a number of cases in which minor changes to a control body’s information have resulted in goods being delayed at a port due to discrepancies between the details on certification documents and in legislation. As such, delays in updating this information in the list could result in a disruption to trade. Without the move to online lists effected by this statutory instrument, any amendment, however small, would be delayed by the time taken for a further SI to go through the legislative process. The faster mechanism introduced by this SI will enable the UK businesses that depend on this to take advantage of new opportunities to trade more quickly. This may provide a competitive advantage over other nations, such as those in the European Union burdened by cumbersome and lengthy processes.

My noble friend and others mentioned that we have legal agreements with 13 countries and 55 control bodies and asked whether updating their lists would be necessary. Yes, we have equivalence agreements with 13 countries, the EU and the EEA states, and 55 control bodies. However, the situation is much more complex in practice because third-country control bodies can certify businesses operating in a number of different countries, with different rules for their operations in each.

Equally, where a third country is recognised as equivalent, the control bodies in that country must also be listed individually. A full list of recognised countries and third-country control bodies runs to over 100 pages, with each page containing significant detail. As we continue to recognise new third countries and third-country control bodies as an independent trading nation, this is likely to expand over time.

16:15

On the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, there is a legitimate query about how quickly Defra will be able to publish updates to the lists after a new decision is made. Once a change has been agreed, the process is fairly swift. It is likely to take approximately two working days, as that is the standard time for updates to GOV.UK to be put into effect, dependent on communication capacity at the time. The time taken for decisions on whether or not to make a change would vary in length based on the complexity of the change in question. For example, if a third-country control body alerts us to a change to its name or website, that can be approved quickly.

The noble Baroness made a point about how Defra would alert stakeholders that changes had been made. Stakeholders will be made aware of the changes in a timely manner by email, and any new third-country recognitions will be consulted on with stakeholders as part of the decision-making process. I add in answer to a number of points that the organic sector desperately needs this—I think noble Lords agree with that and understand it. We are not making this change in the teeth of opposition from the organic sector; it wants a simple, streamlined process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and a number of other noble Lords asked about parliamentary oversight of the approval of third countries and third-country control bodies, and that point was also raised by the SLSC. We believe that, given the administrative and low-impact nature of amendments to the lists of recognised third countries and third-country control bodies and the very detailed technical assessment required by this instrument to add a country or control body to the list, scrutiny at official level is appropriate. The recognition of a third country’s organic standards as equivalent is based on an extensive technical evaluation of the third country’s organic standards to ensure that they are comparable to the UK’s standards, and an evaluation of its enforcement mechanisms to ensure that those standards are being met in practice. The final decision will have Secretary of State oversight, and, if recognition is agreed, the third country must meet continuing obligations, including the provision of annual reports and notification of infringements or changes to standards.

It was asked why reference to EU equivalence is made until 31 December 2023 and what will happen after that date. In the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation agreement we committed to recognising the European Union as equivalent for the purposes of organics until 31 December 2023 and vice versa. This is in line with the convention for EU recognition of third countries for organics, which is limited to three years at a time. We will use the recognition provided by this SI to reflect our recognition of the EU in our official list. This SI will allow us to move our recognition of the EU on to official lists. At the end of the current recognition period, equivalence will need to be renegotiated between the UK and the EU. Our intention is that, when the current mutual recognition ends, we will seek to renew it.

On whether this SI will allow the Secretary of State to lower organic standards, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, makes an important point. The key point of this is to maintain organic standards; that is what we need for international trade, and that is what the sector wants. The UK standards for organic production, which third countries must equal if their goods are to be recognised as equivalent and imported to the UK, are set out in retained regulations 834/2007 and 889/2008. Amendment to these regulations requires a statutory instrument, so will require parliamentary scrutiny. I think that that point answers a number of the queries made. The Secretary of State cannot simply decide to amend these standards, and it is not in our interests to lower those standards, because it would affect our ability to trade with other countries.

The standards for third-country organics recognition are set out in articles 32 and 33 of retained EU regulation 834/2007 and 1235/2008. There is detailed technical guidance on what will be required to recognise a country as equivalent—for example, carrying out a full standards comparison, reviewing a technical dossier, conducting annual reviews and carrying out audits.

On the point about the Trade and Agriculture Commission, I respectfully take a different view from the noble Baroness. Its views are not ignored; it is a relatively new body, and we want to make sure that it works. It is vital that it works for farmers and the UK economy.

I was asked why Defra cannot publish the lists on GOV.UK without taking them out of legislation. Defra could publish copies of the lists of third countries and control bodies on GOV.UK without removing them from legislation, but that would not solve the main issue, which this SI seeks to resolve. Lists published on GOV.UK would not be legally binding if they were not underpinned by the correct legislation. Port health authorities, for example, would not be able to work on the basis of those lists when checking which organic products may be imported into this country. In such a scenario, any change would still require that a new SI be passed.

I have already touched on the question about ongoing disagreements on aspects of organic regulations and whether they are retained and devolved, but I shall be open with noble Lords. There is an ongoing disagreement between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations about whether certain aspects of implementing trade policy are devolved or reserved. That disagreement is not specific to the organic sector. The source of this dispute is over the question of what is or is not reserved. While it is agreed that trade is in general a reserved matter, there is a dispute over whether domestic enforcement of agreements is reserved. To allow the continued functioning of the organic sector, the four Administrations agreed that Defra should remain the UK competent authority and they should work together through the four nations working group. Although this issue has not been resolved, it is not affecting day-to-day operations—that is absolutely key. The process of seeking a legal resolution would be costly and time-consuming, and therefore the Administrations have not considered it necessary.

I re-emphasise that we are not doing this to the organic producers—we are doing it for them; it is a measure that they want. We are setting up an expert working group that will work with Defra officials to determine whether a third country or third-country control body has an equivalence to GB standards. Consultation will also take place within the sector, and this will be considered before the Secretary of State agrees to any recognition.

With that, I hope that I have answered your Lordships’ questions and that noble Lords share my sense of the need for this instrument to streamline the existing process for amending lists of third countries and third-country control bodies recognised as compliant and equivalent by the UK and to facilitate the trade in organics between the UK and EU. As outlined in my opening remarks, the instrument will allow for the timely extension of EU recognition until the end of 2023, as agreed in the trade and co-operation agreement, as well as avoiding any unnecessary disruptions to trade caused by inaccurate information in legislation.

I believe that I have answered all noble Lords’ questions, but I shall have to check Hansard. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I have missed any out, and I shall reply in writing.

Motion agreed.

Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from Non-household Retail Market) (Consequential Provision) Regulations 2021

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:25

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from Non-household Retail Market) (Consequential Provision) Regulations 2021.

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

My Lords, the technical amendments in this instrument, which was laid before the House on 21 July, amend the Water Industry Act 1991 to reapply developer service duties to water and sewerage undertakers —generally known as water companies—operating in retail exit areas wholly or mainly in England.

As part of competition introduced into the water sector, a “retail exit area” is where a water company, such as Thames Water, has transferred its “retail”—business or non-household—customers, such as supermarkets, to a separate company or “retailer”. The retailer liaises with Thames Water for the water and sewerage services to be provided to the business customer and the retailer bills the business customer for the services and offers it advice on how to improve its use of water.

This market allows business customers to have all their water and sewerage services looked after by one retailer, saving them time and money in dealing with billing for these services. This was not possible when water companies dealt with business customers directly. The market also enables retailers to work directly with housing developers for their water and sewerage services, which they need when building new homes, as housing developers are of course also businesses.

To set up the developer services for retailers, we disapplied some water company duties through the Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from Non-household Retail Market) Regulations 2016. These disapplications have had unintended consequences for developer services, which is why we are now seeking to reapply the duties and to set up developer services for retailers in a slightly different way. I should make it clear that all the amendments introduced by this instrument are therefore technical operability amendments and do not introduce any policy changes.

The Water Industry Act 1991 is the principal piece of legislation setting out the duties and functions of water companies in England and Wales. The retail market is a devolved matter and the 2016 regulations applied to English water companies only. The market opened in April 2017, but water companies did not all transfer business customers to retailers when the market opened. The last water company to transfer its business customers to a retailer was in 2019. The effects of the way in which the developer services market was set up were therefore not fully realised for a few years after market opening.

When setting up the market for developer services, Defra recognised that some developers might still wish to work with the water company for the housing developer services, for example. We envisaged that housing developers choosing this route would make their own contractual arrangements with the company. However, in subsequent discussions with Ofwat, the economic regulator of the water industry, and with the water industry itself, it emerged that contractual arrangements are not straightforward. They do not sufficiently replicate the water company duties within the 1991 Act that were disapplied and the unintended consequences include Ofwat no longer being able to determine complaints from a housing developer about the developer services provided, as well as water companies having restricted access to water and sewerage pipes to maintain them.

Retailers are also choosing largely not to be part of the developer services market, for two principal reasons. The first is that, due to the technical nature of developer services and the expertise required, retailers are generally not big enough to be able to provide that. Secondly, as most residents of new developments are household rather than business customers, the retailer does all the work to get the water and sewerage connections made but then must transfer the household business to the water company, so the retailer does not increase its customer numbers.

16:30

This statutory instrument is therefore needed to resolve those issues. It makes no changes to the water retail policy for developer services; it just enables us to refine our legislative approach for how we are delivering it. It reapplies developer services duties to water companies but with modifications to those original duties. That will enable water companies to provide developer services to housing developers without the need for separate contractual arrangements.

The SI addresses the unintended consequences, such as Ofwat being unable to determine complaints, but still enables retailers to continue to provide developer services if they wish to do so. We have also modified those duties, so that if a developer first approaches the retailer for the service and they choose to undertake it, the developer cannot then change its mind and ask the water company to provide the services directly to it instead.

My department is presently reviewing progress in the whole retail market through a post-implementation review of the 2016 retail exit regulations. Our post-implementation review will look at progress since the 2017 market opening in the round, and it will be completed in the new year.

Both the JCSI and the SLSC have formally considered this instrument and approved it. In line with published guidance, there is no need to conduct an impact assessment for the instrument; this is because no—or no significant—impact on the private or voluntary sector is foreseen, as the instrument relates to the maintenance of existing regulation. The territorial extent of the instrument is England and Wales. The territorial application of the instrument is England. I commend the draft regulations to the House.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for talking us through the regulations today. I remember that, when the original legislation went through—rather than the regulations themselves—concern was expressed about what would happen if a retail company were to fail. I do not know whether that has been resolved in the existing regulations; as my noble friend has explained, it seems that these regulations apply to that very narrow area of a retailer providing services to housebuilders.

I want to take this opportunity to ask a question in that regard. My noble friend is aware of my passion for SUDS—sustainable drains. Where housing developers build major new developments, is it envisaged within the original regulations that SUDS could be applied as a condition of planning permission for the work being agreed?

The Explanatory Memorandum says that the instrument—I believe it is the second regulation—will

“reinstate the … duty on undertakers to provide connection services, on request, in retail exit areas”.

Is that deemed to be an automatic right to connect? Is there any leeway to ensure that we can actually insert a condition that SUDS must at that stage be envisaged? That could save any contribution to flooding down the line.

The Explanatory Memorandum says at paragraph 7.3:

“The main retail services provided to non-household customers through the retail market”,


as my noble friend said,

“are billing and administration services. However, with the opening of the market, it was designed so that retailers could also provide new water and sewerage connections services to business customers.”

My noble friend said that this was limited. Has it been so limited as to have never actually happened, or has it happened in literally only one or two cases? Paragraph 7.3 goes on to say:

“These services primarily concern connections to water and sewerage services for new developments, involving predominantly housing developers.”


My noble friend is aware of my interest. I latched on to something he said during the passage of the Environment Bill before it went to the other place: the automatic right to connect no longer being automatic. Will that apply in these as well as other cases?

Paragraph 7.6 goes on to say: “We”—and I presume the “we” is the Government—

“consider that ‘non-household premises’ includes new housing developments which are under construction before anyone is using the premises as their home.”

Does that mean that existing housing developments do not fall into this category? Is there any chance that the regulations before us this afternoon will apply to those existing housing developments? It goes on to say that

“Until people move in, we consider that a development does not fit that definition”,


as given in that paragraph. On what basis has the department reached that conclusion? What background brought it to that position?

Paragraph 7.7 says that

“There are several unintended consequences”,


as my noble friend set out,

“of the 2016 Regulations’ amendments. These concern new connection services, the laying, inspecting, maintaining, adjusting, repairing”.

I still maintain, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, that, when making these new automatic connections automatic, we are dealing with Victorian, antiquated piping. Whether it is the retailer or the water company providing these services, the pipes are deemed to have to connect. At the moment, the water company is not a statutory consultee, whereas the Environment Agency, for example, is; I do not believe that the advice the water company is giving planning authorities has the same legal force as that from the Environment Agency.

I ask my noble friend whether the problems with the regulations set out in Paragraph 7.7 could be avoided by ending the automatic right to connect. It is unacceptable; we have an opportunity, at this stage in the regulations, for the water company or retailer to say that they cannot make physical connections when housing developments are being made and that there will be overflow into the storm drains and the possibility that sewage will come back into either the new developments or, worse, existing developments that have not been affected in the past.

I welcome this opportunity to ask questions on those points, with a special emphasis on whether sustainable drains can be part and parcel of this, and that the water company or retailer should say whether the existing infrastructure simply cannot take the amount of wastewater envisaged to come out of any new houses.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI and for his comments. On the face of it, it seems like a straightforward change in the legislation to bring the retail sector into line with domestic housing arrangements following the changes made in the Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from Non-household Retail Market) Regulations 2016. I note that this instrument relates only to England, but the extent of it is England and Wales where there are cross-border issues.

The water and sewerage industries were privatised in England and Wales in 1989. In 2014, reform of the Water Act enabled competition in the market. In 2016, the transfer of non-household retail business prevented the provision of retail service to new non-household customers that arose in its area. Given what we now know about the effects of supply and demand on water and sewerage systems, this would seem a sensible step.

Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum enables

“developers to make new connection requests to their retailer.”

There is no mention in the Explanatory Memorandum, nor in the instrument itself, of whether there would be capacity for new development to be safely connected under the automatic right to connect, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has already mentioned.

The Minister will know that during the passage of the Environment Bill there were many debates about the effect of effluent being discharged into rivers, lakes and other watercourses and the extremely detrimental effect this has on both water quality and the wildlife that previously inhabited those areas. I ask the Minister whether the local relevant sewerage and water capacity will be part of the consideration when developers apply for connection for retail. The automatic right of developers to connect for housing developments has caused considerable problems, not only in effluent discharge, but has contributed to localised flooding during prolonged periods of rainfall.

This is a minimal change to the legislation, but the legislation relating to domestic properties is far from perfect. Once the drainage and sewerage management plans are in place, that should ensure better collaboration between developers and those dealing with the supply of water and disposal of sewage. But these are not yet in place. Duties in Section 41 and 45 no longer apply to premises in a retail exit area. To indicate that new households under construction are not classified as household premises until people move in is somewhat late in the day to deal with capacity issues and whether sewerage systems are able to cope with the additional demand.

A Section 98 duty to comply with sewer requisition is the duty to provide a public sewer or a lateral drain. This appears not to apply in relation to premises in the retail exit area that were not household premises. Just what is the legal obligation to ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the sewerage system for new connections from retailers? This might be a small retail outlet, or it might be retail premises relating to an already overlarge housing development, which would be a much larger connection.

I am sure the Minister can understand my concerns and I would be grateful for his reassurance that capacity will form part of the connection requirements. I note that a consultation period took place between 29 April and 25 May 2021. This period included a bank holiday. Seventeen responses were received but the EM does not say whether Water UK or the Consumer Council for Water were among those. However, I understand from officials that, since there were responses from some water providers if not from Water UK itself, there seems to have been a general positive agreement in the industry in response to this SI.

I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on the consultation exercise. I understand why Defra has introduced this new measure but remain extremely concerned about the effect on flooding of connecting retailers to the sewerage system without first checking that the system has the necessary capacity.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI. I am sure he will be relieved to hear that we accept that it is broadly technical in nature and, as such, will not be opposing it. It deals with relatively small consequences of the reform of the water industry and the right of water companies to exit the non-household retail market in their sector. As the Minister has said, several unintended consequences have arisen from the new provisions and this SI deals with one such anomaly relating to new housing developments.

I have to say I was amused to read the Commons Minister Rebecca Pow stating when introducing this measure that it was underpinned by the Government’s commitment to

“strong, independent regulation that protects customers and the environment”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 22/9/21; col. 4.]

because, arguably, that is exactly what we do not have. This is why water companies such as Southern Water get away with regularly pouring sewage into our rivers and sea with no comeback from their customers or for their customers. But I accept that that is a slightly wider issue than the SI before us today.

16:45

The Minister in the Commons also argued that while water companies did not have to provide the water connection service for new development under the existing regime, they

“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.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/9/21; col. 6.]

This generosity is a whole new side of the water companies that many of us will be rather unfamiliar with, but I am interested in the consequences of changing the regulations in the way that is being proposed. As the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bakewell, have said, many of us have been concerned for some time with the expectation that water companies are obliged to connect new developments to existing water and sewerage systems, even when they know that the infrastructure does not have the capacity to carry this extra load.

Will water companies be able to operate with more discretion about which housing developments they provide connection services for under these new provisions? Would they be able to insist that the system must be underpinned by sustainable drainage systems before they connect them? In other words, what new flexibility and powers will the water companies have under these changes? Can the Minister also clarify whether there will be any additional costs when they are no longer acting out of the generosity of their hearts, and will those costs be passed on to the customer?

Finally, can I ask about the devolution implications of this provision? This SI deals with the water and sewerage industry in England. Given the complexities that have been thrown up by the changed legislation and the 2016 regulations, do the devolved nations have an equivalent scheme, or have they found a more straightforward way of regulating the supply of water to the non-household retail market, which has not thrown up these anomalies? Is there an opportunity to learn from what might be better practice in the devolved nations?

I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. If nothing else, it has highlighted the complexity of the water industry and the legislation which governs it.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh takes a very keen interest in this issue, as I have discovered since taking part in these debates. The right to connect is an issue that she has raised before and which has been discussed at length in connection with the concerns raised during the passage of the Environment Bill over storm overflows, in particular the right to connect surface water drains to foul sewers. This is outside the remit of developer services and these regulations, which concern only the construction of new sewers and the connecting of new homes to wastewater sewer services. However, in providing developer services, water companies will often proactively discuss with the developer how they will drain their sites, suggesting ways to avoid connecting surface water drains to foul sewers.

The issue of possible failure is being considered as part of the post-implementation review, and Defra is reviewing SuDS as part of our review of Schedule 3. My noble friend raised the issue of retailer involvement. Some retailers have been involved with the new connections but mainly with retail developments. Most retailers are referring developers to water companies.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised issues around network capacity. Amending the duties to reference capacity would effectively be a new duty on water companies and would therefore also be out of the scope of these regulations. Also, reapplying Section 98 would also reapply Sections 99 and 100, which concern the financial arrangements regarding any new public sewer. Section 100(4) enables the water company to include in the costs charged to the developer the costs reasonably incurred in providing new public sewers and any reasonable proportion of costs incurred to provide additional capacity in existing sewers that have been constructed in the previous 12 years.

My noble friend also raised the issue of drainage and sewerage plans. Plans are currently being produced now for drainage and sewerage management. Draft plans will be consulted on in April next year, and these are currently non-statutory. My noble friend asked whether the Consumer Council has responded to the consultation. The answer is yes. We also spoke at length with Water UK, which agreed with the changes.

Many of the hugely important issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, were debated during the passage of the Environment Bill. She raised the case of Southern Water, whose pollution of our waterways has been met with a reaction from the courts, leading to fines and so on. The regulatory regime that governs water companies and the pollution of waters and rivers is an issue that has been raised effectively by my noble friend the Duke of Wellington through various amendments. There is no doubt that the water companies will have to step up and that Defra will have to take a more robust approach to dealing with them. I do not think that anyone in the country regards the pouring of raw sewage into our waterways as a routine matter, as opposed to an emergency situation for the prevention of deaths. It is not acceptable, and that is our view in Defra.

We have been working closely, and discussions will continue, with my noble friend the Duke of Westminster —the Duke of Wellington. I can only apologise to my noble friend, for the fourth time; it is becoming a tick that I cannot rid myself of. Someone is playing games with me.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Not me.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

It is my noble friend Lady Bloomfield.

I look forward to meeting my noble friend the Duke of Wellington shortly to discuss progress on some of the issues that he raised.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised the devolved nations. Scotland has its own process; Wales does not have a retail system in place. We are exploring the Scottish process with it, as part of the post-implementation review.

The noble Baroness also raised the issue of water companies providing the developer services. Water companies have provided services, in discussions with developers, and ensure that discussions about connections to sewers and SUDS provision occur to reduce surface water being sent to public sewers.

I think that I have answered the questions that were raised, so I will close there. All the changes introduced by this instrument, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, noted, are technical, operability amendments required to ensure that we are able to continue to operate the regulations and the retail market appropriately. They make no changes to water retail policy for developer services; they just enable us to refine our legislative approach to how we deliver them. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the House.

Motion agreed.

Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2021

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:55

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2021.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, known fondly by everybody as ATMUA. ATMUA created a more flexible set of powers for Ministers to implement slot alleviation measures related to the impacts of Covid-19, subject to a vote in both Houses. It allows us to tailor our response in ways that were not possible beforehand.

Ordinarily, airlines must operate slots 80% of the time to retain the right to the same slots the following year; this is known as the 80:20 rule or the “use it or lose it” rule. However, the powers provided by ATMUA enable the Secretary of State to provide alleviation from this rule if he is satisfied that there is a reduction in demand due to the Covid-19 pandemic and that the reduction is likely to persist.

Under ordinary circumstances, the 80:20 rule helps to encourage efficient use of scarce airport capacity while allowing airlines a degree of flexibility in their operations. In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the EU Commission waived the 80:20 rule for the summer 2020 and winter 2020 seasons. Following the UK’s departure from the EU, the UK Government decided to extend this waiver to cover the summer 2021 season, going through until the end of October 2021, through the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2021.

Through the provision to airlines of legal certainty that they would be able to retain their slots even if not operated, the commercial impacts of the Covid-19 outbreak on the industry were mitigated. This is because airlines might otherwise have opted to incur costs and operate flights at low load factors merely to retain slots. That would have been bad for emissions and, of course, bad for their finances.

Due to continued uncertainty and low passenger demand forecasts, we set out a package of measures on 19 July to alleviate slot usage requirements for the winter 2021 season, which runs from 31 October 2021 through to 26 March 2022. This package was developed following consultation with the aviation industry and careful consideration of the responses that we received. Industry expressed a range of views, ranging from calls for a full waiver to support for no alleviation at all.

The draft instrument being considered today applies to England, Scotland and Wales. Aerodromes are a devolved matter in relation to Northern Ireland and, as there are no slot co-ordinated airports in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Executive agreed that it was not appropriate for the powers of the Act to extend to, or apply in relation to, Northern Ireland.

In the draft instrument, the Government have set out a package of alleviation measures designed to work together. These include changing the minimum usage ratio to 50:50, meaning that airlines are required to use their slots at least 50% of the time to retain the right to operate these same slots the following year. The reintroduction of a utilisation rate should encourage efficient slot use while also supporting sector recovery.

Secondly, the draft regulations also allow airlines that hand back a full series of slots to the slot co-ordinator—

16:59

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

17:06

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, we were talking about the content of the SI and discussed the first element, which changes the minimum usage ratio to 50%.

The second element is that the regulations allow airlines which hand back a full series of slots to the slot co-ordinator before the start of the season to retain the right to operate that series of slots the following year. This will provide an opportunity for other airlines, including new entrants, to apply for and operate these slots on a temporary or ad hoc basis. This measure will apply to traded and leased slots but not to newly allocated ones; this is to prevent carriers acquiring slots with no intention to operate them. Airlines which have announced that they have permanently ceased or will permanently cease operations at an airport before the start of the winter 2022 season will not benefit from this measure in winter 2022.

Finally, the draft regulations expand the reasons which airlines may use to justify not using slots to include Covid-19-related restrictions. This provides a backstop against the risk of unforeseen Covid-19-related measures or restrictions being imposed during the season. This will apply where unforeseen Covid-19-related measures—including flight bans and quarantine or self-isolation requirements—are applied at either end of a route and have a severe impact on demand for the route or its viability. It will apply where restrictions could not reasonably have been foreseen in time to hand back the full slot series. There will be a three-week recovery period during which these provisions, sometimes known as force majeure, may still apply following the end of the Covid restrictions. These measures will cover the winter 2021 scheduling period, as I have noted. We are currently considering alleviation for summer 2022 and plan to consult with industry to inform our policy decision later this year.

This instrument provides necessary relief for the aviation sector for the winter 2021 scheduling period. Through this package of measures, we have aimed to strike a balance between supporting the financial health of the sector and encouraging recovery. I commend this instrument to the Committee.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her very clear explanation. I certainly appreciate the need for these adjustments to take the heat off the airlines during what is still a difficult time for aviation.

I note that one of the reasons why the non-use of slots is justified is a result of government-imposed measures which make routes unviable. It is a pity that the airlines are getting the benefit of this alleviation on slot allocation when there appears to be no clear obligation on those same airlines to return money to consumers on the basis of the same government restrictions on flying. Not all airlines by any means have behaved badly, but the CMA has recently cited a lack of clarity in consumer legislation for its abandonment of attempts to ensure that all airlines did the decent thing and offered proper refunds. Can the Minister say whether the Government have any intention to clarify consumer law?

I note also that there has been no impact assessment because this legislation is designed to be for a period of less than 12 months. But in fact, although it sets out rules for 2021-22, it also bestows rights to the control of future slots into 2023. That is what the winter period of 2022 becomes—it moves over into 2023. This situation has already existed for 18 months, and, as the Explanatory Memorandum itself points out, slots have significant competitive operational and financial value. Taken together, this will have a distorting impact on the industry—it can have nothing else. The Explanatory Memorandum warns of the impact on smaller airports and the likelihood that the relief to a 50% level for the use of slots will have an impact on small airlines wanting to accumulate new slot rights at congested airports. Therefore, although this measure is undoubtedly environmentally desirable and commercially necessary at this time, it will favour the big and established airlines. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

Paragraph 7.6 of the EM recognises the dubious practices of some airlines, which seek basically to game the system by seeking to accumulate new slots for this winter which they have no intention of using, simply to gain historic rights for use in the future. So my question to the Minister is this. In the past, Gatwick has had some concerns about what it saw as unfair hoarding of slots. Is the Minister aware of this issue—I am sure she is—and has it been resolved to the satisfaction of Gatwick Airport?

Paragraph 3.1 of the EM refers to reasons for delay in laying the draft SI and the need to use the latest data on the level of air traffic. Can the Minister please give us an update on what the latest level of air traffic is at the moment? What percentage are we up to compared with 2019, for example?

Finally, is the Minister aware of what action our neighbouring countries are taking on this issue? Are they taking similar action on slots? Everyone started from a similar position on the rules on slots across the EU and in neighbouring countries. In the early period of the pandemic, I recall that they all moved forward in a fairly similar way. Are we still in tune with the actions of our neighbours?

17:15

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I too thank the Minister for her explanation of the content and purpose of this instrument, which comes into force at the end of this month. As has been said, in essence, the effect of this statutory instrument is further to suspend the usual rules that UK airport slots must be used for 80% of the time to minimum to avoid the airline concerned losing the slots for the following season. The suspension is due to the Covid-related reduction in air traffic.

The 80:20 rule was waived by EU legislation for the summer 2020 slot-scheduling season and for the winter 2020-21 season, and the Government put in place a similar waiver for the summer 2021 season, which runs until 30 October. In the light of current UK flight traffic levels, the Government now consider it necessary to provide continuing relief and amend the 80:20 rule to cover the winter 2021 season, which, as the Minister said, runs from 31 October this year to 26 March next year.

These regulations make three changes in relation to slots allocated for the winter 2021 season, as set out by the Minister in introducing this statutory instrument, including reducing the required percentage rate from 80% to 50%. The regulations also enable an air carrier to retain rights to a series of slots for the winter 2022 season, if it returns the complete slot series on or before 7 September 2021. Could the Government say how many and which air carriers—if the date was 7 September 2021—have exercised their rights under that part of the regulations?

Earlier this month, it was reported that while easyJet operated at 58% of its 2019 capacity during the summer months, that was expected to increase to 70% over the winter months. Do the Government regard 70% capacity over the winter months as a likely figure for industry-wide levels, and, if not, what capacity figure do the Government expect over the coming winter months? How confident are the Government that this will be the final suspension of the 80:20 rule due to the Covid-19-related reduction in air traffic? I take it that the answer is “not very confident” from a comment that the Minister made, I think, in relation to the summer of next year. If the Government are not confident, is consideration being given to lowering the 80% level at some stage, on a more permanent basis?

The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The Department for Transport received 54 responses to the consultation from air carriers, airports, and trade and representative bodies.”


Since it is not clear from the EM, how many of those responses supported all three of the changes made by these regulations, as set out by the Minister, in relation to slots allocated for the winter 2021 scheduling period? Since it is not clear from the EM how many of those responses supported all three, could the Government now provide that figure? I await the Government’s response.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for their contributions to the short debate today and for their welcome—I think—for these regulations. I think they do the right thing for the industry. As ever, both have asked me questions that I am unable to answer today, so I shall be writing, but, in the meantime, I hope to run through a few of the elements that have been raised.

First, it is worth reflecting on where the aviation sector is at the moment. Obviously, it remains not where we want it to be, but it is in a much better place than it was. As of the end of September 2021, UK flight traffic continues slowly to recover but remains 49% below corresponding 2019 levels. Even with the ongoing relaxation of restrictions and the anticipated reopening of travel to the US, Covid-19 is likely to remain a considerable source of uncertainty for some time. I think that also addresses the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who asked where we see things going in the future. It is not really possible for us to say what we think capacity is going to be like over the winter months, and certainly we will need to maintain as much flexibility as possible. We have to make sure that we discourage slot hoarding and inefficient slot use. We need to make sure that we support the airlines’ financial health as much as we can, and we have to protect future connectivity, both domestically and internationally.

Part of what the Government are working hard on at the moment is what the future for aviation looks like, because we recognise that it has been an incredibly challenging time for what feels like a long period now and the sector is vital to our future as a global trading nation. My department is working on a strategic framework for the aviation sector which will focus on building back better and ensuring a successful UK aviation sector in the future. The framework will explore a number of issues, including workforce and skills, regional connectivity, noise, innovation and regulation, and the consumer issues so rightly highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The framework will of course also consider climate change and decarbonisation, as well as the role that aviation plays in the UK’s global reach. We hope to have that published by the end of the year. I look forward to discussing it with noble Lords then.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what proportion of full slot series have been handed back. I do not have that data, and I am not entirely sure that we would have it, for commercial reasons, but if I am able to find out a bit more information I shall certainly write to the noble Lord and set it out. Whether they use slots has to be a commercial decision for the airlines; they will take into account the services and routes they operate. The provision allows them such flexibility so that they are able, before the start of the season, to do something about what they think is going to happen if they potentially have too many slots that it is clear they will not need. We are aware that a number of airlines have returned their slots and then reapplied for a proportion of them as ad hocs. This is a legitimate use of the provisions, which are designed to promote flexibility. These slots may of course have been allocated to another carrier. In those circumstances, the decision is not exactly risk free, but it was obviously the right one for the airlines that chose to do that.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked for greater detail on the breakdown of the 54 respondents and who felt what about which of the interventions we are proposing. I do not have that. I have said previously that there was a range of views. We felt that the 50% minimum usage threshold was supported by the largest number of respondents, and it is consistent with proposals being put forward by IATA—again, that is helpful.

The noble Baroness asked what the EU is doing. It is doing something fairly similar at the moment. I think we have slightly more flexibility because we have the powers under ATMUA, but, given that aviation is so interconnected, we look at what the EU is doing as well as at what is happening in the US, where domestic flights have continued to a significant degree but international flights have not. We believe we have the right balance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about an impact assessment and highlighted some of the impacts that have been set out very well in the Explanatory Memorandum. There are pros and cons. It is a careful balance that we are trying to achieve, but a formal impact assessment is not needed—obviously, my officials checked this out carefully—because the regulations apply for a six-month period; that is, it is less than 12 months. However, we have done what we can to set out clearly the benefits and potential disbenefits of the interventions in the Explanatory Memorandum. Given that our interventions are matched by so many other countries, I believe it is probably the right way to go.

I turn to some of the longer-term issues relating to slots. It is the case that we are considering the whole slot allocation system as part of future aviation policy. We are not entirely convinced that the current system is working as efficiently as it could. It is worth looking at it because, as we recover from the impacts of Covid-19, we want to make sure that we have the right level of competition to ensure that the customer gets the best levels of connectivity and indeed price. This work will involve consultation with our international partners and all our UK stakeholders. It is not a small endeavour but it is something that we will be looking at in future.

Without the instrument, we would return to the default 80:20 slot usage rule. I do not believe that noble Lords want to go there and no one has indicated that that is the case. I therefore think that the instrument provides an appropriate way forward and I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) (Amendment) Order 2021

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:26

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) (Amendment) Order 2021.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, the two instruments that I am speaking to today, along with the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 3) Amendment (No. 2) Order 2021, are a package of measures and it is important that they should be debated together. I am grateful to the House for facilitating this. While the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 3) Amendment (No. 2) Order 2021 requires the negative procedure, it should be taken into account when considering the two amending orders, as it completes the whole picture. Taken together, they support the effective management of Operation Brock and strengthen the enforcement regime that underpins it.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have been working with partners in the Kent Resilience Forum to continue to develop Operation Brock. Operation Brock is a co-ordinated multiagency response, owned by the Kent Resilience Forum, to manage heavy commercial vehicle traffic during cross-Channel travel disruption, specifically when capacity for HCVs to leave the UK through the Port of Dover or the Channel Tunnel—together, the short straits—is significantly restricted.

In the instances to date when Operation Brock has been deployed, it has successfully managed to limit the effects of traffic disruption on freight traffic and other road users, both on the main motorway and local road network. We need to be able to continue to use Brock should cross-Channel disruption occur in future—for example, due to bad weather or industrial action. The existing legislation will expire at the end of the month and the amending orders seek to put it on a stable footing by removing the sunset clauses. Together they are a vital part of Operation Brock, as they provide the enforcement and the traffic restriction regime that underpins its operation.

By way of background, the legislation was first put in place in 2019 in preparation for a potential no-deal departure from the EU. It was updated in 2020 in preparation for the end of the EU transition period and once again in 2021 in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

The No. 1 2019 order provides powers to traffic officers to support Operation Brock and sets the amount of the financial penalty deposit for breaching restrictions created by the three orders. The amount of the deposit for breaching the restrictions introduced by the instruments is set at £300. The No. 1 amendment order removes the sunset clause and removes references to redundant offences from the Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) Order 2009 to reflect amendments made by the other amending orders.

The No. 2 2019 order restricts cross-Channel HCVs from using local roads in Kent other than those on the approved Operation Brock routes when Operation Brock is active. The amending order updates which roads are restricted and removes the sunset clause.

To complete the picture, the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 3) Amendment (No. 2) Order 2021, which is subject to the negative procedure, will again remove the existing sunset clause provisions from the No. 3 2019 order. That order restricts access for cross-Channel HGVs to the motorways in Kent, including the contraflow on the M20 and use of the M2, when Operation Brock is active.

To summarise, these amending instruments continue the powers from the 2019 orders by removing the sunset clause. In doing so, Brock will be an available option for the Kent Resilience Forum to keep traffic moving to, from and through Kent. These orders remove the extraneous elements that are no longer needed—the provisions relating to the EU transition period and to the Covid-19 pandemic, which were intended to be temporary. We wanted to underpin the core enforcement and traffic restrictions of Brock for the longer term. These orders are of vital importance to allow sensible traffic management in Kent. Operation Brock has proven to be an efficient traffic management measure. I commend the orders to the Committee.

17:30

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for expanding a little on what is in orders No. 1 and No. 2. I took the opportunity to have brief consultations with some hauliers in my former constituency of Northampton South. I will go through the paragraphs of the Explanatory Memorandum that I think are relevant; they are coterminous across the two orders.

My noble friend talked at some length about the sunset clause, in paragraph 2.6. In my experience in both Houses, the purpose of a sunset clause is that it is a time to review a situation. It ensures that the department involved knows that there is a particular time when the order, or whatever it may be, must be reviewed. If the Government of the day decide that they no longer need it, okay, it is finished. But my noble friend said that they would like to keep it, just in case they might need it at some future time. With great respect, that is a burden on the industry because hanging over it is the fact that, at any point in time, Her Majesty’s Government can suddenly bring it in again, even though it is in a modified form. My conclusion is that there should be a sunset clause, maybe in 10 years or whatever is an appropriate time, because that ensures that there is then a proper review. Otherwise, all we do is add to legislation sitting there to no purpose. That is my view on that.

On paragraph 7.1, has there been any report on the review of the effectiveness of Operation Brock? That is an important dimension, particularly to hauliers. There is no mention that there has been, but I would have thought that somebody must have done one and that, if they have, it ought to be published. On paragraph 7.3, is my noble friend saying that the requirements listed are definitely no longer needed at all—in which case, has this been publicised sufficiently to the industry?

Paragraph 7.6 is about the supply chain, which we all know is causing a problem. Do Her Majesty’s Government expect normally not to need any further legislation, as has happened over the recent change on inviting in foreign truck drivers? No legislation was needed and an announcement was made. While I am on that, I have to say frankly that it has gone down like a lead balloon among UK hauliers, for two reasons. First, the hauliers ask, “If the short-term people from the continent can be given multi-drops and pick-up cabotage in a difficult situation, why on earth are we UK hauliers not allowed to do that?” Quite frankly, there is a great problem out there—it is painfully obvious —so if we are giving it to the foreigners coming in, which I welcome, why are our own people not allowed to do the same for a short period as well?

Paragraph 10.2 on consultation says that there were just 14 responses. I am not quite sure how to read that. Is that 14 companies—if it is, it would have been helpful to list them as companies—or 14 people who are interested in the industry who have responded? What is it? The universe of that is really quite important. If it is companies, is it just companies using Dover, or is it some other universe? It would be enormously helpful if my noble friend could tell us what the universe is.

The haulier handbook in paragraph 11.1 is very welcome and the trade welcomes that. Regarding the 17 locations, I am not quite clear, but I assume that this affects all ports trading between the UK and the EU. I did not have time to work out how many ports there are, but it must be a fair number. So, if the 17 locations are all related to Dover, that is fine, but if they are across the UK then that is not quite so fine.

Finally, I raised the training of HGV drivers with my noble friend on the Floor of the House the other day. My noble friend will know that there was a scheme for professional career development loans for drivers and for some reason it was closed in 2019. The amount of the loans available were from £300 to £10,000. These were for families that were probably not that well off and probably could not find that money very easily. If we have a shortage of HGV drivers—which we appear to have—why on earth was the scheme closed to new entrants in 2019? I do not expect an answer today, but can my noble friend have a look at that situation and see whether we should not be reopening that straightaway?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I start by thanking the Minister for her explanation. I share some of the noble Lord’s concerns. I have real concerns about these SIs. Although they seem to be perfectly reasonable attempts to introduce a more systematic way of dealing with the pressures on Kent roads and ports, especially Dover, in practice this is yet another step in the creeping accumulation of powers by this Government. This is an issue to which our attention was drawn by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

This is an unusual example, because they are SIs that were introduced for one reason; that did not occur, but the Government are using the opportunity to take away the sunset clause and make it a permanent situation. They were introduced under cover of emergency procedures, hence without the usual consultation and safeguards, and are now being converted into long-term measures. This general trend in a number of pieces of legislation is exacerbated by Covid and the pandemic—although that is not relevant in this particular case.

In practice, these amending orders remove the sunset clauses in existing legislation. They make the powers that make up the response which is Operation Brock a permanent feature. The county of Kent will live under a series of extraordinary measures with certain categories of vehicles requiring passports to enter the county. Operation Brock is now to be used as a response to unforeseen disruption; for example, bad weather or industrial action and, I assume, other forms of unforeseen disruption as well. But these are occasional disruptions, and they happen across the UK as a whole, not just in Kent, so there is always the danger that this will be seen as a precedent.

My unease is even greater because when the Government originally introduced these measures, they anticipated—I have to say, I believed them—that there would be long queues on motorways because of new port procedures following our leaving the EU.

In fact, that has not happened, partly because the number of HGVs using the motorways has fallen, partly because there are not any drivers, or at least anything like the number that there used to be, because there has been a general falling-off in levels of trade with the EU, and because the trucks that used to take the land bridge between Northern Ireland and continental Europe now go largely via the Republic and straight down to the rest of the EU. Added together, these issues have meant a reduction in the number of HGVs, so there has not been the level of queuing. The Government took other measures which undoubtedly alleviated the possibilities of queuing. Although it complained vociferously about it, after the first few weeks, the industry became better prepared in terms of the paperwork than it was feared that there might be.

Kent access permits, which the first order is concerned with and as the noble Lord has pointed out, are undoubtedly an additional bureaucratic hurdle for the logistics trade at an already difficult time. It is yet another piece of paper, another form to be completed. I am interested in the practicality of this. Can the Minister explain how often these powers have been used? She referred to that briefly, but can she give us a little more detail about how often these powers have been used so far and how long Operation Brock has been in force on these occasions? Also, how is the logistics industry informed that Operation Brock is active? Someone might be aware that it is snowing, but perhaps not if they are in Newcastle and it is snowing in Kent.

This is an additional piece of bureaucracy for local hauliers too, albeit so that they can continue to use local roads, which obviously is important for them. Paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum referred to the consultation and said that there were 14 responses, and that the majority were in favour. What were the views of the industry representatives? I am particularly interested in the views of local councils because they represent local residents, who have had their lives seriously disrupted by traffic issues in the past. It was hoped that Operation Brock would solve this.

Paragraph 13.2 says:

“The vast majority of HCV drivers travelling via the Channel Tunnel and Port of Dover work for foreign hauliers”.


We know that this balance has changed in recent months, so it would be very useful for all of us if the Minister could update us on the most recent percentages and the balance that there is now between UK domestic hauliers and foreign hauliers using those routes. I look forward to the Minister’s responses.

17:45

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Again, I too thank the Minister for her explanation of the purpose and content of the orders we are discussing.

The Department for Transport has said that Operation Brock was originally created to deal with disruption caused by our exit from the European Union and then in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. As I understand it, Operation Brock creates, among other measures, a contraflow road layout on the M20 and the setting up of concrete barriers so that lorries heading for mainland Europe can queue on the coast-bound carriageway if there are disruptions or delays at Dover or the Channel Tunnel. Any decision to put out or remove the concrete barriers involves the Government.

The Government now want to remove the sunset clauses from Operation Brock on the basis of the argument that this will mean the Kent Resilience Forum will be better prepared to respond to any type of traffic disruption in the area not related to our EU exit, including industrial action and severe weather. I do not know whether the industrial action reference is to possible action by heavy goods vehicle drivers, who have sought unsuccessfully to get a better deal following the Prime Minister’s assurance that they should be paid more.

This Government claim to be averse to ratcheting up regulation, yet here we have a regulation that was brought in on a temporary basis to address the chaos of the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal and his inadequate response to the Covid-19 pandemic—as set out in the recent joint report from two Commons Select Committees, both chaired by two of his own MPs—now being made permanent, despite the fact that the Government have removed most Covid restrictions and tell us that the PM’s Brexit deal has only upsides and no significant downsides. Can the Government explain why, if disruption at Dover and the Channel Tunnel from industrial action and severe weather is such a threat that these temporary orders must now be made permanent, it was not considered necessary to bring them in in the nine years from 2010 to 2019?

The striking thing about the two Explanatory Memoranda is that they offer no evidence or explanation why making these orders permanent is necessary or what the consequences, based on past experience, would be if the sunset clauses were applied to Operation Brock. In essence, the Explanatory Memoranda—and thus the Government—are saying that these powers would be nice to have in perpetuity, even though we have no clue how frequently and for how long they would be needed, even based on past experience. In the absence of any proper case being made, this appears to be an example of a government desire to have powers for the sake of it.

The other possible explanation for making these powers permanent is that the Government know that the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal has significant downsides and are expecting significant disruption or delays at Dover and the Channel Tunnel if relationships with the EU in general, and the French in particular, deteriorate still further. In that situation, the Government would attribute the need to make these orders permanent primarily to delays for some other reason—such as industrial action or severe weather—rather than admit that the Prime Minister’s brand of hard Brexit is not all sweetness and light for Britain. The Explanatory Memoranda slip in a reference in paragraph 8 to

“delays from customs checks at the international borders in Kent”,

which may refer to the continuing problems associated with the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal.

I ask the following questions, to which I would like a full government response, either today or subsequently. As far as I can see, although I may be wrong, none of these questions is addressed in the Explanatory Memorandum. First, what happened before Operation Brock when there were delays at Dover and the Channel Tunnel unrelated to our EU exit or Covid? Once again, if those delays were so bad that the Operation Brock powers now need to be made permanent, why did the Government allow that position to continue for nine years from 2010?

Secondly, on how many occasions since 2010 has disruption caused by severe weather been such that Operation Brock would actually have been brought into operation, and for how long, had the now proposed permanent powers been available?

Thirdly, on how many occasions since 2010 has disruption caused by industrial action been such that Operation Brock would actually have been brought into operation, and for how long, had the now-proposed permanent powers been available?

Fourthly—as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked—on how many separate occasions since the present regulations first came into effect has Operation Brock been brought into operation in full, for what reason, and for how long on each occasion? As has been said, we have not had an evaluation of the effectiveness or otherwise of Operation Brock to date, yet these powers are being made permanent.

Fifthly, what is the cost of building and removing on each occasion the Operation Brock contraflow barriers on the M20? Have there been any occasions when the barriers have been put up and then removed without being used?

Sixthly, how many additional traffic officers have already been required in connection with Operation Brock and it being brought into effect, and how many will be required if the sunset clauses are removed and the order becomes permanent?

My seventh question relates to the Explanatory Memoranda, which refer to a national consultation between 26 May and 20 June this year, and say that key affected stakeholders in Kent were

“made aware of the consultation when it launched”,

whatever that phrase means in practice. We are then told, as has already been pointed out, that the consultation received 14 responses, which the Government admit was “low”, but that it included “members of the public”. Has any other national consultation received just 14 responses? Were the views of local residents actively sought? In some quarters, Operation Brock has proved controversial, with complaints from some local residents affected about disruption caused during work to install the required infrastructure.

I hope that the Government in their response will, not only today but subsequently, provide answers to the questions that I and others have raised, but also provide a rather better argued case than is contained in the Explanatory Memoranda as to why this order must now become permanent, contrary to what we had been told would be the case up to now. Clearly, something of some significance must have happened or come to light, which could not have been known or appreciated before, to justify the Government’s change of mind over bringing into effect the sunset clauses. We are entitled to be told exactly what that something is and the detailed case for the Government’s U-turn over the sunset clauses. I await the Government’s response.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their considered contributions today. I hope to put their minds at rest—but also I shall write, because I do not quite have all the answers to the questions. That always annoys me a bit, but I shall do my best.

Briefly, I would like to take noble Lords back, although I am afraid that my memory is a bit dodgy, to what is probably just over 10 years ago, when I remember spending many hours with my children in a hot car in Kent trying to get across the short straits. It was dire. I sat on a local road in Kent for hours. I think it was due to industrial action—it was a sunny day, so it probably was not bad weather. But we know that, when there is disruption at the short straits, Kent stops. What we are trying to put in place today is something to help the people of Kent. I shall endeavour to set out the rationale behind that and how the interventions that we have put in place to deal with a potential no-deal exit and Covid turned out to be good things—progress, so to speak. That progress should be grasped on this occasion, and not left to rot.

Looking at where we are, the whole point of these regulations is to put in place a permanent framework around a temporary traffic management solution. My noble friend Lord Naseby asked whether it had been successful. I would say that the proof of that is in the pudding. It has been successful; we have not had great big tailbacks in Kent. We also know that it is more effective than the previous intervention, Operation Stack, which really did not go down very well with the local community.

The whole point of Operation Brock is that it allows HCV drivers to be stationed on the M20 and stops them rat-running through local roads and blocking them, as happened on my very unfortunate journey many years ago. It will only ever be used in the event of significant disruption at the short-strait crossings. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, read an awful lot into that, which I am afraid is simply not there. All sorts of things could cause disruption at the short straits. The whole point of what we are trying to do today is that, if there is any disruption, the county of Kent does not come to a standstill, because that is not good for people trying to cross the short straits and certainly not good for the people of Kent.

17:56

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

18:02

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

To return to discussing the Operation Brock traffic management scheme, maybe I can take noble Lords back, not as far as previously but just a couple of years, to when we bought the quick movable barrier. This was an opportunistic purchase; someone came along and said, “Oh look, there is a machine that you can store on the side of the M20 and can quickly put out these blocks.” Previously we had put up a metal barrier that had taken a very long time to put in, and when it was in then it was in and you could not take it back down again. It caused massive amounts of disruption.

The whole point of the QMB was that it was an opportunistic purchase, because the technology became available, and we realised that it would work incredibly well in Kent and form part of Operation Brock. That is why we went ahead and did it. This is one of those things that sometimes happen when you have to reach out for solutions, and one becomes available that actually looks good for the longer term. That is just what has happened in this case.

As noble Lords will know, when we put out the QMB, it allows HCVs either to use the coastbound section of the M20 in free flow or to be controlled using a traffic light system at the front of the queue to split the port of Dover and Eurotunnel traffic. It basically organises all the freight movements going through Kent. What we propose is that, when Operation Brock is in place, those HCVs are not drifting around the local roads of Kent, blocking people’s driveways and stopping them doing their day-to-day business.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the cost of the QMB, and I am happy that I have the answer for him today. The estimates for the ongoing resourcing of the QMB, when implemented over a six-month period, are £9.5 million and £5 million for National Highways and Kent County Council respectively. The cost of deploying and removing the QMB for an incident are in the order of £200,000.

What is the current status of the QMB and Operation Brock—how many times we used it and so on—so far? Noble Lords will recall that the closure of the border by the French Government towards the end of last year caused vast amounts of chaos for the traffic in Kent, although that was somewhat improved by the fact that we had Operation Brock, and so on. So we deployed the QMB going into the start of 2021, and we stood it down in April. It was deployed for a further couple of weeks in July when we felt that there may be delays, not at our border but potentially in leaving the country because of the checks at the French border.

Operation Brock is not currently deployed, so the moveable barrier is stored quite nicely all along the side of the M20. It just sits there, not doing anything. There are no obligations on hauliers—nothing happens at all. I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who seemed to be under the impression that there is some sort of Kent access permit that will still be in place, that there will not be—it will be taken away. If I am a local haulier, the only bureaucracy I am seeing from this is that I should speak to my local county council to get the pass that I will need to make sure that I am not stuck in Brock queues—we would not want that to happen. They will probably do that, because it is definitely in their interests to do so. If I am a haulier travelling around the UK, I will want to know whether Brock is in operation. The haulage grapevine works incredibly well, but even if it does not, the national highways VMS—variable messaging systems—would say “Operation Brock is currently in operation”. All hauliers know what Operation Brock is; there is no confusion whatever in that regard.

What is the alternative if we do not take these powers? I sense that there is a feeling that there is a bit of power mission creep here. We have this lovely QMB, which we purchased because it was a good opportunity to purchase good technology. The alternative is for us to put the QMB in place and have no powers of enforcement whatever, which would be slightly pointless. We need to continue to make sure that if a pesky haulier decides to wander into the local roads of Kent, which would be very bad for the local people, the Kent Police can go to that haulier and say, “Excuse me, Madame”—or Monsieur—“where are you going?” If they say, “I’m going to the short straits” and they are not where they should be, they will get a £300 fine. That is exactly what these powers are designed to do. If we do not have them, we cannot do that. We could put in the QMB, and you could say, “You have to come back to Parliament and ask for the powers then”. Neither I, we or the people of Kent have time for that. It is therefore important that we have all these things in place just in case they are needed. Of course I hope that they will never be needed, but you know what? There will be disruption due to bad weather; we will probably need it, and it is good that we have it.

My noble friend Lord Naseby asked whether this had been successful in the past. The proof of the pudding in this is how effective enforcement has been in the past, when we have had to use these regulations owing to EU exit or Covid reasons. When the Kent access permit was mandatory, in the three-and-a-half-month period from 1 January to 19 April, which was the period in 2021 I talked about, there were 2,174 offences, each carrying a £300 penalty. As of 31 August, 2,129 of those had been paid. That is, 98% of those fines were paid, which is good: £638,000 of fines were collected. This is good for the people of Kent.

We asked the hauliers, and not that many people responded. That does not surprise me at all, because I should imagine that they know what Operation Brock is, and it is good for them that there is a sensible system of queuing. However, I will provide more in-depth information if I have it about what people said in their response. We received feedback from local residents. There was an open consultation in summer 2021, and we sought the views of local residents and received and considered a number of responses. I do not know how many, so I will check and write to the noble Lord on that.

On the removal of the sunset clause, I thank the SLSC for its work on this, but I was a little concerned by it saying that this would mean

“making Operation Brock permanently available”.

That is a good thing; I think the people of Kent would think that a good thing. It would mean that Operation Brock was permanently available, but not permanently in place. It would be in place only in those periods when, otherwise, Kent would literally come to a standstill. We looked at where we were with the legislation and decided that we did not need sunset clauses. We can of course come back to the legislation at any point in the future—for example, in five years’ time, if we are fortunate enough still to be here—and a discussion can be had. If we have not used Operation Brock in all that time and it is asked why we have all these powers, maybe at that stage we can have that discussion, but I do not think it worth while having it now, because we need the powers to make sure that the system works as effectively as it should. Given that there is no time-limiting factor on any potential cause or reason for using Operation Brock, there seems to be no reason for a sunset clause.

I hope that I have put noble Lords’ minds at rest. I am very focused on the people of Kent and their amenity to use their local roads, as well as on the hauliers, so that they can get from A to B as efficiently and effectively as possible. I know that noble Lords have some reservations, so I shall write with further details to try to reassure them. In the meantime, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2021

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

18:11

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2021.

Motion agreed.

18:11

Sitting suspended.

Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Grand Committee

Debate before Second Reading

18:13

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill before Second Reading.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, this is a Bill with two distinct and important measures. The first is a measure to change the valuation assumptions that are applied when making business rate determinations in the light of Covid-19. The second measure provides for the investigation and disqualification of the former directors of dissolved companies.

Let me start with the business rates measure. Clause 1 of this Bill is about how the impacts of Covid-19 should be accounted for in rateable values, the key component of business rates liabilities. This clause will ensure that the coronavirus and its effects will not be considered as a material change of circumstance for the purposes of assessing rateable values. This measure is needed to respond to the unprecedented volume of appeals received by the Valuation Office Agency since the start of the pandemic. It will provide local authorities with certainty and security against a potentially crippling financial blow. It will ensure that the law operates in the way it was designed to do, by using general revaluations of non-domestic properties to reflect the impacts of major economic events in rateable values. As noble Lords will recall from when we debated and approved the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No.2) Bill, a matter which I am sure is at the forefront of all noble Lords’ imaginations, the next revaluation in England has been moved to 2023 based on the market at 1 April 2021 so that the system can better reflect the impact of the pandemic.

The pandemic has of course hit businesses hard, and the Government have responded with unprecedented support. To take business rates alone, over this financial year and the last one, we are providing £16 billion of business rates relief for retail, hospitality, leisure and nursery properties. We are introducing a further £1.5 billion of relief in recognition of the complex ways in which Covid-19 has impacted the economy and supply chains. Local government has also needed government support. Business rates provide a stable source of income for local authorities to plan the financing and delivery of local public services. The events that necessitated this measure threatened that stability and certainty in a profound way.

The Local Government Finance Act 1988 provided the source of our valuation and local business taxation systems. Ensuring that this system operates as it was designed to do is a vital part of the Government’s rationale. Business rates bills are calculated by multiplying the rateable value of the property by the multiplier or tax rate, then applying various reliefs. The rateable value of a property is, broadly speaking, its annual rental value at a set valuation date. These rateable values are updated at regular revaluations undertaken by the Valuation Office Agency, which provides a consistent tax base for all businesses and a stable income stream for all local authorities.

Of course, ratepayers can challenge rateable values outside of general revaluations for a number of reasons, such as to correct a factual error or to reflect what is called a material change of circumstances, or MCC. If not satisfied with the outcome of the challenge, the ratepayer may appeal the VOA’s decision to the valuation tribunal.

The MCC system was not designed to reflect changes in economic factors, market conditions or the general level of rents. The 1988 Act was not designed with Covid-19 in mind, and the MCC system has never been used in response to an event with such economy-wide impacts as Covid-19. Moreover, the Government are clear that relying on the MCC system to help businesses that need further support in light of the pandemic would be misguided. It would mean significant amounts of taxpayer support going to businesses with properties such as offices, many of which have been able to operate normally throughout the pandemic, of course. It would also mean resolving such disputes through the courts. This could take many years and would create additional uncertainty for ratepayers and local councils.

Instead, the Bill will clarify the law such that coronavirus, and the restrictions put in place in response to it, cannot be used as the basis for making a successful MCC challenge or appeal. It will ensure that changes to the physical state of the property can continue to be reflected in rateable values as and when they occur, irrespective of whether this is as a result of coronavirus, but that the general impact of the pandemic on the property market will not be reflected until the next revaluation in 2023. This approach will provide much-needed certainty to councils and ratepayers alike.

We have of course worked closely with the devolved Administrations on these and other matters over the last 18 months. Following a request from the Welsh Government and amendments tabled on Report in the other place, the Bill will extend to Wales as well as England. Scotland has begun its own legislative process, which mirrors our approach.

The Government welcomed the support of Labour Members in the other place. The Public Accounts Committee also recorded its approval for the Government’s approach, as did the local government witnesses in Committee. These endorsements speak to the fundamental soundness of the policy rationale behind the business rates measures in the Bill.

The second part of this Bill addresses the problem of potential abuse of the process whereby companies are struck off the register and dissolved. I am proud to pay tribute to the resilience and determination of the many thousands of British company directors who have steered their companies through challenges from lockdowns, social distancing, and other restrictions on trading, all of which were necessary to limit the spread of Covid-19 and to keep our country safe. The responsible and effective stewardship of companies has helped to save countless jobs and livelihoods and will continue to provide an invaluable contribution to the economy as it recovers from the effects of the pandemic.

Unfortunately, there will always be those few individuals who do not comply with their duties as directors, and who do not act in the best interests of the company, its employees, or its creditors. It is important that that majority of honest and diligent directors, and the wider public, are protected from the potentially very damaging actions of those few bad apples. Directors who behave recklessly or irresponsibly can expect to have to answer for their conduct and may face proceedings to disqualify them from acting in the management of a company. Evidence to support disqualification action comes from investigation of companies and the conduct of their directors, and I would like to explain a little of how this process works in practice.

For insolvent companies, conduct is investigated through powers in the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Insolvency officeholders submit returns to the Secretary of State, reporting on the conduct of the directors in question. These are vetted, and where misconduct is suspected, it is assessed on the basis of public interest; for example, how much harm there has been to creditors and the wider public. Further investigation may be undertaken through examining company records and seeking information from third parties, including creditors, and directors themselves will also be asked to provide information and given opportunities to explain their actions. Where evidence of misconduct is found, a period of disqualification may then be sought. Investigations may also occur in live companies, using powers in the Companies Act 1985.

This Bill extends the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may investigate the conduct of directors to where the company has been dissolved without being subject to insolvency proceedings. It will extend the deterrent effect of the disqualification regime to those directors who abuse the company dissolution process. The Government consulted on this measure in 2018, when it was welcomed by stakeholders. Implementation is now particularly important to help reduce the risk of the fraudulent avoidance of repayment of government-backed loans made to businesses to support them during the pandemic.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that people who abuse the system will seek to take advantage wherever they can, so counterfraud checks were built into the lending process for bounce-back loans. For example, as a condition of the guarantee agreement, lenders were required to undertake appropriate anti-fraud and anti-money laundering checks before loans were made, and if they did not, they would not be able to call on the Government’s guarantee in the event of a borrower’s default. The new power to investigate and disqualify former directors of dissolved companies will back up those anti-fraud measures by deterring wrongful avoidance of repayment, and so help to ensure that public funds are protected. It will also pave the way to seek compensation from disqualified directors guilty of misconduct that has caused loss to others, including in relation to bounce-back loans.

Noble Lords may also be interested to hear about other actions taken by my department to minimise the risk of companies fraudulently avoiding repayment of their bounce-back loans. In March 2021, the department entered a blanket objection to any company with an unpaid bounce-back loan being struck off the register. This has prevented almost 51,000 companies, with total unpaid loans of over £1.7 billion, being dissolved. This action has ensured that lenders can continue to make recoveries on loans due to be repaid and will ensure that the public purse is protected. I commend this Bill to the Committee.

18:24

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, there are many in this Committee with considerable and specific expertise in relation to the matters covered by this Bill, none more so than my noble friend Lord Sikka. I venture to speak in this debate, however, to seek clarification from the Minister on matters relating to the role of local councils.

On 25 March, Her Majesty’s Government announced that they would give councils £1.5 billion to offer grant relief to businesses, excluding retail, hospitality and leisure, that have been hard hit by the Covid pandemic. As I understand it, this relief is an alternative to any adjustment to rateable value as a result of changes in circumstances. I therefore have a number of questions for the Minister. I do not think that the basis of the calculation of £1.5 billion is known, except presumably by those who made it, nor is it unambiguously clear to me how the money will be disbursed. Can the Minister say what will happen if the fund is exhausted and whether perhaps any local councils would be expected to top it up?

Further, in regard to local councils, given that one assumes there will be criteria for disbursement, is it foreseeable that there may be disputes and possibly appeals? If there were, this would inevitably result in additional administrative and IT costs. It is not clear that any additional funding or financial support will be available to local councils to carry out these duties and responsibilities. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether local councils—their finances already hard hit, not just because of Covid but from years of cuts—will be expected to bear the administration costs of the scheme? If so, what assessment has been made of the impact on local ratepayers and local services? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

18:26

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, who certainly made some very telling points. I thank my noble friend the Minister for setting out the purport of the legislation, which is clearly important. It is legislation that I broadly support. It clearly comes in two parts, “Rating” and “Directors Disqualification”.

On the “Rating” part, it is worth making the point that the Government have given some £280 billion of support to business since the start of the pandemic and that, during 2020-21, more than half of business rate payers have paid nothing. That support continues, and quite right too. The material change of circumstances would be a blunt instrument in the present situation and I can certainly see the point, on financial rectitude and common sense, of proceeding to the basis of valuation in 2023 on an unchanged basis. In the other place, the Public Accounts Committee has approved of that approach.

I have a similar question to the noble Baroness about the £1.5 billion of support. The noble Lord quite rightly referred to the importance of certainty for business, but there is uncertainty as to how this particular fund is going to be disbursed and which businesses will benefit from it. It would be good to hear when there will be clarity on that because, to reiterate the point, certainty is vital for business—as it is for us all in our everyday lives.

There is then the question of whether it will be enough and what will happen if it is not. The case has been well made in relation to, for example, airports. I know that might not be a fashionable point as we approach COP 26, which I strongly support, but we are all heavily dependent on airports in our everyday lives, as we have clearly seen, so it would be good to have some reassurance for that section of the community.

In passing—I appreciate that it is probably beyond the pay grade of both Ministers—I look forward to the Budget next week and perhaps some indication of some tax changes so that digital businesses and the Netflixes of this world, which clearly have not been paying enough tax on a fair basis, are perhaps brought into a position where they pay a fairer tax. I hope that we will get some indication of when that is going to happen.

I move to the second part of the legislation, which relates to “Directors Disqualification”. As the Minister rightly said, this disqualification change predates the Covid pandemic. In a sense, it has nothing to do with Covid; it is something important that needs to be done quite independently of Covid. I appreciate that we all have a great interest—quite apart from tackling the fraud—in ensuring that the bounce-back loans are properly dealt with, but it would be good to hear that this is not the sum total of what is intended here.

It has been a serious issue over a period of time that directors have used the ability to dissolve their company to dodge the impact of insolvency legislation. I hope this is not going to be limited to the bounce-back provision, and I hope the Government are minded to use the Insolvency Service more widely to tackle other frauds. Many creditors of companies are in a very parlous position because of this considerable loophole, which has been abused over a period of time.

I certainly welcome the partial closing of the loophole, but it would be good to hear that the Government intend to move further than that. It has been suggested by the Insolvency Service that more than 5,000 dissolutions of companies a year have sidestepped the insolvency protections of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. This particular legislation deals only with the protection offered by the Company Directors Disqualification Act. It does not seem to do anything about the Insolvency Act protections, because we do not know that the company is necessarily going to be brought within the purport of the insolvency legislation. There are considerable protections in that 1986 Act that will not govern these companies, notwithstanding the provisions in this legislation.

As I say, this legislation is worth one or two cheers but not three because, as far as I can see, it does not go far enough. It would be good to hear that the Government recognise that and intend to take it further to protect other creditors and to tighten it regarding those who abuse the provisions of the Companies Act—the ability to operate through a company and the separate personality provisions entailed in that. I look forward to hearing more on that point.

I also want to raise the point about reimbursement. This deals with the disqualification of directors and tightens that particular screw for directors using dissolution inappropriately, but as far as I can see it does not do anything directly in relation to them disgorging the profits that they have made fraudulently. It is important that that should happen. The Minister referred to this in a rather vague, amorphous way, but it would be good to hear specifically what it means. Is this going to be by virtue of a compensation order? How is it going to be done?

Further to that point, given what I have said about the number of companies that come within this particular provision—up to 5,000 a year, on a calculation made by the Government themselves—what are we doing about the resources for the Insolvency Service? It is stretched already and, if it is expected to take on this extra work, it will need extra resource if, as we all hope, it is to do the job appropriately.

I support the legislation, but we should not run away with the idea that it solves all the problems in this area. It does not, and we will need more action.

18:33

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, the procedure for this debate before Second Reading was queried at the time of the Chief Whip’s commitment Motion. I had not realised that not only has this procedure been used only once before—namely, last October during our hybrid phase—but, so far as I know, the Procedure Committee has not reported on it. I have to say that I consider it unsatisfactory to separate in time and place the bulk of debate here from a decision to give a Second Reading some other time in the Chamber. Can the Minister confirm what discussions with the Procedure Committee have taken place about using this procedure now that we are out of hybrid mode? He may need to come back to me on that on some other occasion.

As to the matter for debate, noble Lords will know of my involvement, over a lifetime as a property professional, with business rates and local government finance and in this House, from the day of my maiden speech to the present time. With my having declared that matter, it will come as no surprise that it is the rating part in Clause 1 of the Bill that I seek to address, and that only. I do not propose to disappoint the Minister in what I have to say, but I apologise in advance because I will need a little time to explain it. I declare at the same time that I am an occupier of business premises and I benefit from a small-business exemption—but, for the avoidance of doubt, I did not claim any Covid grant or relief for the interruption of business activities.

I acknowledge that the Government have made great efforts to relieve business rate payers of many of the worst effects and burdens that have arisen during the pandemic, but it is far from the case that it has been applied equally to all, or indeed evenly across the spectrum of property. Nor has it been in any way linked to impact or means, so far as I can tell.

I also acknowledge that, having introduced measures to grant emergency relief, it might be seen as perverse to allow those who benefited from them to make further claims for the same period due to material changes of circumstances, or MCCs. However, it would be simplistic to go down that road. I do not believe that those who set about to make MCC appeals were those same beneficiaries or intended to claim for the same period, given that the duration of relief was not known at that time. Indeed, it is likely that they were not one and the same. Either way, it should be a simple matter to make provision to prevent such double counting, if indeed there is evidence of it.

MCCs have always been available where substantial change has affected the assumed annual value of property; a supermarket opening up down the road, affecting traditional high streets, or changes in highway arrangements, affecting trade—that sort of thing. However, the Government suggest that this was never intended to address an issue of global impact such as a pandemic. From the dawn of rating under the statute of Elizabeth I to the General Rate Act 1967—on which I cut my professional teeth—and on to the present day, there has been plenty of time to ponder such matters, and yet we have this measure only now. Coincidence? I think not.

The reality is that in the pandemic some sectors did well, others realigned their processes and activities to stay afloat, and a further group floundered and continue to do so. It is not correct to say that the pandemic produced a general downturn lasting for more than a year, which is the usual benchmark for dealing with material matters for rating valuation purposes.

It is a concern that the Government took so long after the commencement of the lockdown to come forward with a measure of this type. Effectively, a year elapsed before the Government chose to lay, initially, a statutory instrument with prospective effect, with the promise of a Bill with retrospective effect—which is where we are now, of course. I do not believe that proper consultation with business rate payers was part of that process.

The courts have been at pains to point out that rateable values are meant to represent the benefit of occupation to the occupier. Where government prevents or limits such beneficial use, rateable values should reduce—but not, it seems, where HM Treasury deems otherwise. As a result, appeals against assessments on grounds of MCCs were made in good faith, in time, and were validated long before the end of March 2021. No attempt was made to avoid this wasted cost and effort during the period when doubtless many public servants were furloughed, but equally the resources were there to consider and act in an appropriate and timely manner on such issues. The Valuation Office Agency was actively involved in negotiations regarding these MCC appeals, in conjunction with ratepayers’ representatives.

I have received representations from, among others, Heathrow Airport—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth—and some advice from rating experts Gerald Eve. If ever there was an MCC event sufficient to interrupt the operation of the nation’s largest airport, this had to be it. While late in the day a grant scheme was set up, it was capped at £2 million per hereditament, so amounted to a flea-bite of a concession in something like the Heathrow rates bill.

Worse than that, it selectively, and, I suggest, unreasonably, failed to address the issues affecting very large assessments and operations such as Heathrow and Gatwick, which to all intents and purposes were completely shut down by force of law while, at the same time, support was given to other types of activity that were still able to keep going, as we have heard. It is therefore hard to comprehend precisely what sort of a material change of circumstances would afford any relief to such a large enterprise, given the effect of the Bill. Nor does it dispel the impression of selective discrimination against a specific class of undertaking.

It is not just about mega-businesses of this sort—many others have suffered equally. Although the productivity may have held up, the double overheads of supporting remote working staff and maintaining empty office buildings have none the less been significant. The Government have protected office tenants from being hounded by their landlords to pay rent for space that they were prevented from physically occupying but have offered them zero protection when it came to business rate bills. That seems to be nothing short of double standards.

The Government have promised to set in place a £1.5 billion discretionary business rates relief fund in place of the MCC reductions that this Bill will now negate. I doubt whether many local authorities will exercise discretion in favour of an international airport, or indeed any but a relatively local cause célèbre, however significant the larger employment and economic activities are of big undertakings that underpin local economies and employment.

The explanatory paper produced at the same time as the SI gives examples in which a ratepayer with a £95,000 assessment might get £7,300 of relief, despite their turnover collapsing to zero. What that tells us is that any benefit is likely to be minimal and that £1.5 billion is a drop in the ocean. To follow what other noble Lords have said, could the Minister please clarify how the Government arrived at this sum of £1.5 billion as appropriate recompense for ratepayers badly impacted by the pandemic? Having been announced in March 2021, in the 2021 fiscal year, does this sum relate only to that year, with nothing further, or is it intended that there should be some further funding for 2021-22?

I find it disturbing that a deliberate decision has been made not to provide information as to how the £1.5 billion will be apportioned between councils and how they should make decisions as to which businesses in their areas should receive some of it—until, that is, this Bill is passed. Of course, that leaves businesses and billing authorities alike in no position to make any plans in relation to it. Can the Minister explain why he cannot today publish a draft of the proposed allocation of the £1.5 billion to each local billing authority and share the draft guidance planned to be issued to councils explaining the circumstances in which the Government believe that businesses should qualify for a share of the cash?

The apparent intention is to make the distribution according to the official data on the impacts of the pandemic on different sectors and not according to estimates of the impact on a property’s value. All this is apparently to ensure

“an even and more proportionate allocation of support”.

We were told that this would enable a speedier payment of support than would have been possible under the usual MCC appeal rules. I am afraid that I do not entirely follow that.

I feel that this is a matter of a veil of obfuscation. Fundamentally, it is about protecting Treasury income streams, first and foremost—and I am afraid that it is just too bad if businesses crumble. It lacks equity and fairness; the most desperate of businesses will be least able to mount a case or may have already gone under, waiting in desperation for government support that has failed to materialise. There is nothing in prospect for those at tipping point now. I have long said, and will say again, that if HM Treasury can think of nothing better to do than to disadvantage businesses which suffer serious losses, due in significant part to government edict, it will be of small concern to it that, in response, reduced exposure to a tax on business floorspace—perhaps by trading increasingly on the web—becomes a standard business plan and, for those who cannot avoid it, a fetter on the nature and extent of the financial risks they will be prepared to underwrite on behalf of the taxman. The moral hazard in all this is that it continues to underpin government willingness to game the system without taking adequate responsibility for the outcome. I suspect that, by the time the £1.5 billion fund kicks in, it will be too little and almost certainly much too late.

Of course, part of the answer is much more frequent revaluations—that, of course, is well beyond the scope of this Bill—but there was supposed to be a fundamental review of business rates, and many expected it to have progressed beyond the 2017 findings. I invite the Minister to give us an update on that if he is willing, but it is no wonder that some on the political spectrum suggest abolishing business rates altogether. It does not need to be so. It would be a perfectly good, fair and cheap-to-run system save for government insistence on overworking it and, essentially, unfairly treating businesses ever since the arrival of the poll tax in 1990. It is a salutary tale of mismanagement, and Clause 1 of this Bill continues the fundamental error.

I leave your Lordships with this thought: what else follows from this further incursion into business rate payer protections and stability of local government budgets?

18:45

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl and to take part in this pre-Second Reading debate, which brings me to my first question for my noble friend the Minister. Can he enlighten noble Lords as to when Second Reading is due to take place?

I support this Bill in general, but associate myself with some of the comments from the noble Earl and from my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. I ask my noble friend the Minister to go back to the department and consider all possible new technologies which could assist in reclaiming BBLS, CBILS and other funds which may otherwise disappear into the ether for want of new technologies which can trace and track down such potentially fraudulent activity.

I support the Bill, but want to test the Minister to see whether we can take the opportunity of this small piece of legislation to go broader and look at the whole area of insolvency practice and potentially to consider in Committee whether it is high time to have a single independent regulator and ombudsman for the insolvency sector. They could consider both individual and corporate insolvencies and be funded through a levy. These ideas are hardly radical; they were certainly seen in other parts of our economy decades ago. This Bill offers an opportunity to look at the insolvency arena through these new governance glasses.

What is the situation now? There is a code of ethics which is voluntary. One can join a recognised professional body, of which there are currently four—there have been more—which do not necessarily act in concert or with consistency and which also act as trade associations for this part of economy, with practitioners able to shop between these RPBs if the mood suits, for reasons which we can all appreciate.

This sector of the economy is too important to be left to be governed as it currently is. It is also extraordinarily unique as an outlier when one considers it in comparison with, for example, legal or financial services.

What could we achieve with this Bill if we took a couple of amendments in Committee? We have the opportunity to end this inconsistency, to bring clarity and to stop the perception of conflict and, in some situations, the actuality of conflict. It is better for IPs and for everybody—better for businesses and better for the entire economy—bringing confidence to all involved, and confidence in this part of the economy. Any economy relies not just on brilliant businesses being built and succeeding but on how we deal with businesses when they get into difficulties. It is so important that this is run efficiently and effectively. If we see that a company is distressed and goes into insolvency procedures, how effectively could it be operated? Potentially, it could maintain employment, supply chains and the local community, if run optimally.

This is too important to be left as it currently is, and it was foreseen six years ago in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act, in which powers—yet to be implemented—were given to the Secretary of State to have a single regulator for this service. Would my noble friend agree that six years is long enough to wait? If we bring amendments forward in Committee, it would make complete sense to implement that part of the Act.

We have the opportunity to end inconsistency and bring coherence and confidence to this sector and the wider economy. I look forward to returning to these points in Committee. I wish the Bill a swift and safe passage through Second Reading, whenever that might be, and I look forward to my noble friend’s comments at this and future stages.

18:50

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I associate myself with some of the remarks made by my other noble friend, but particularly underline the very real importance of the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has a lifetime’s experience here.

I must begin by declaring an interest that, for almost half a century, I have from time to time given advice to the Machinery Users’ Association, which was founded as long ago as 1884 to advise—I see the noble Earl nodding—industry and business on the rating of plant and industrial machinery. There is real concern in the association on behalf of its many members in many businesses and industries. There is an element of retrospectivity in this legislation, which is not good.

I am also somewhat disturbed by the way in which we are debating Second Reading but not debating Second Reading. This was scheduled to be taken on the Floor of the House on 26 October. It was then scheduled to be taken on the Floor of the House yesterday. The change, I might say, had nothing to do with the tragic events of Friday; it had been announced before then. I do not really think this is the way we should legislate when the legislation is very broad-ranging.

I will say nothing about the directors—with broad agreement over that section of the Bill, I do not need to—but we have real uncertainty facing many businesses. The noble Earl put this very graphically in talking about the £1.5 billion. When will we know how this will be distributed? What will be the criteria? We ought to know. Business ought to know.

I asked the MUA to give me one or two examples. I will not detain or weary the Committee by going into great detail, but I am told that the owners of a former British Home Store in Barnstaple, in Devon, cannot market it or let it—they could not begin to let it during lockdown—yet they were required to pay 100% of the rates and were not entitled to a retail discount. For another totally different company, a tenant in Sloane Street—an exclusive address, with costs to match—had premises effectively vacant from the beginning of the first lockdown. This could be replicated up and down the country. I do not dissent at all from anything the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said about the importance of business rates to local authorities, but local authorities will get nothing at all if they are surrounded by bankrupt businesses, and it is very important—even at this late stage in the progress of the legislation—that the Government come clean a little more clearly.

The sum of £1.5 billion sounds extraordinary and magisterial—to all of us in this Committee it is—but not when spread over a whole country. How long is it for? What precisely will happen when revaluation comes about in 2023? I am delighted to see the noble Baroness nodding vigorously, because these questions must be answered. People’s livelihoods and the livelihoods of local authorities depend to a large degree on this. It is a most unsatisfactory piece of legislation. It is two pieces of legislation cobbled together. One of them I do not particularly dissent from, because nobody could conceivably approve of fraud, and fraud perpetrated at the expense of the taxpayer during a pandemic is about as low as you can get. We would all agree with that. However, the rating put on at the beginning is a different subject which needs more comprehensive and joined-up thinking.

I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Callanan has been called away, but I ask my noble friend who will reply to this debate whether we can have some conversations, if not before Second Reading then at least before Committee, because it would not be beyond the wit of man and certainly should not be beyond the wit of government to table one or two amendments that would bring a degree of cohesion to the Bill. It should be accompanied by a reasonably detailed statement about how this £1.5 billion is to be used.

I could go on, but I will not. However, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for bringing his lifetime of professional experience to our deliberations.

18:57

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this debate. I particularly commend the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and agree with almost everything that he said. I will confine my comments to the second part of the Bill, relating to insolvency. It is unlikely to achieve its aims.

The Bill assumes that the Insolvency Service will act in a timely manner, but it is hard to find much evidence to support that. Carillion collapsed in January 2018. Only on 12 January 2021 did the Insolvency Service apply for director disqualification orders against eight directors and former directors of Carillion. To date, none has been disqualified. BHS, which was mentioned earlier, entered administration on 25 April 2016 and liquidation on 2 December 2016, but it was only on 5 November 2019 that former BHS director Dominic Chappell was disqualified for 10 years. A number of executive and non-executive directors, including the BHS chairman, were severely criticised in the joint report by the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, but to date none has been disqualified. It is business as usual.

Of course, little people get picked on. The Bill has not really been preceded by any changes to the law relating to the formation of companies. Anyone, from anywhere in the world, can form a limited company in the UK. There is no authentication check on the identity of individuals forming the company, its directors or its shareholders. Private companies in the UK need one director only, who must be a natural person, and the BEIS website very helpfully tells people that directors do not have to live in the UK. How on earth will the Government enforce the UK legislation against directors who do not live in the UK?

Public companies need at least two directors but only one of them needs to be a natural person. The other can be a shell company located in an opaque tax haven where absolutely nothing is known about directors of companies. There are plenty of examples of that. UK-registered companies have around 7 million directors at the moment. I hope the Minister can tell the Committee how many of those are resident outside the UK or are bodies corporate registered in opaque tax havens. How many of those named are fake and do not exist? You can use any name you like.

Companies House acts mainly as a filing box and rarely performs any meaningful checks. Thousands of companies have directors whose addresses are in offshore jurisdictions and it is impossible for the UK to call foreign nationals to account for corporate offences. Can the Minister again please explain how the Insolvency Service will act against those individuals?

UK company law also permits nominee shareholdings and directorships, which enables concealment of the identity of real controllers and beneficiaries. How will the real controllers of companies be disciplined or disqualified? The Government also act in a very inconsistent manner when taking action against the filing of false information. I will give the Committee a pretty well known but real example.

Individuals connected with the mafia in Italy formed a company in the UK with the name Magnolia Fundaction UK Ltd. The company’s officers used Italian to file information at Companies House. When translated into English, the document said that the name of one of the directors was “The Chicken Thief”. He gave his occupation as “fraudster” and the address given was “The Street of the 40 Thieves in the town of Ali Baba, Italy”. Companies House dutifully accepted such documents. When the matter was raised in the House of Commons on 14 September 2017, the Minister said,

“No action has been taken”—


I think the sound of the Division Bell is the cue for me to stop. I will return to the actions of the Chicken Thief afterwards.

19:02

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

19:10

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

To recap, I was talking about the individuals connected to the mafia who had a company in the UK called Magnolia Fundaction UK Ltd. They filed information saying that the director’s name was “The Chicken Thief”, his occupation “fraudster” and the address “Street of the 40 Thieves in the town of Ali Baba, Italy. Companies House gratefully accepted this and filed it away—that was it. When the Secretary of State was asked on 14 September 2017 what she was going to do about it, the reply was:

“No action has been taken at this time against the promoters and officers of Magnolia Fundaction UK Ltd for filing inappropriate information in Italian at Companies House.”


Nothing has changed since; it is exactly the same.

I knew the names of some well-known convicted mafia criminals and, out of curiosity, I put one of their names into the Companies House website. The person turned out to be a director of an organisation called Business Bank Italy Ltd, registered in the UK. It had a website that was inviting people to invest. I reported that matter to the shadow Chancellor at the time, Anneliese Dodds, she raised it in the other place and eventually the website vanished.

Nobody in authority at the Insolvency Service or anywhere else even bothers to see whether criminals’ names appear in the Companies House database. It is that bad, and we think that that kind of institutional framework will help us deal with misdemeanours by directors; it is not going to do that. What the Government have done is prosecute someone who demonstrated how easy it is to form a company with a false name and then announced in a newspaper that he had done it. So they went and prosecuted him—effectively, he was a whistleblower.

The proposed regime under the Bill for dissolved companies will suffer from the same problem as the current regime for live companies: the requirement that an interested party, most likely a creditor, raises concerns about the conduct of a company’s directors with the Insolvency Service. But how will the creditors know that a company is being dissolved? Directors are required to notify creditors of the proposed dissolution, and such creditors have an opportunity to object to the proposed dissolution before it takes effect, but not all such creditors may be notified. You can have pre-packs without any creditors meeting. People do not even need to be told. All kinds of things happen.

Once a company has been dissolved, there is no equivalent of a liquidator or an administrator of an insolvent company who has a duty to investigate the conduct of directors and report them to the Insolvency Service. This makes it more likely that only the particularly egregious examples of misconduct significant enough to come to the attention of the interested party will be investigated in respect of the directors of dissolved companies.

Companies can also be dissolved without any formal legal process. For example, Companies House can dissolve a company if it fails to file annual accounts. You do not need to go through any legal process; just do not file the accounts. Every year, thousands of companies do that, so many rogue directors can choose this method to dissolve companies. Such possibilities do not even appear in the Bill, as to who is going to find out and what they are going to do about it.

The Bill places considerable reliance upon insolvency practitioners but the insolvency industry has been engaged in corrupt practices for years. About 20 years ago I published a monograph—titled, appropriately, Insolvent Abuse—which documented many of the corrupt practices of the insolvency industry. Hardly anything has changed in the last 20 years. The industry is still running amok. This week the Financial Reporting Council confirmed its fine of £13 million on KPMG and £500,000 on its insolvency partner, together with costs of £2.8 million for investigation. The reason was that KPMG and its insolvency partner pushed Silentnight, which was a client of the accountancy firm, towards insolvency, so that the private equity group HIG, the client that it really wanted to cultivate, could buy the business out of administration by dumping the defined-benefit pension scheme for Silentnight’s 1,200 staff. KPMG’s partner lied to the Pensions Regulator and to the Pension Protection Fund.

KPMG has been central to numerous scandals, and its involvement in another will perhaps not surprise many in this House. However, it is still in business, and its lying partner is not facing any criminal investigation or charge. Perhaps the Minister can explain why there is one set of laws for ordinary mortals but another for accountancy firm partners, where they go in front of kangaroo courts and lie but still continue with their lives.

In case anyone thinks that was a hefty fine for the partner, usually the partnership agreement states that the firm will reimburse the partner, so his £500,000 fine will be reimbursed, while the £13 million fine for KPMG will go not to the members of the Silentnight pension scheme, who have lost some of their pension rights, but to the coffers of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, which authorised the cheating, lying partner. The institute will be quids in. It is akin to someone being fined for mugging and then being told, “By the way, make the cheque payable to the Institute of Muggers.” That is what we have by way of self-regulation, and it is wrong on every count.

I urge the Minister to act to ensure that the money goes to the victims of KPMG, not the ICAEW, which does not deserve it. It has already recovered the costs of the investigation. These RPBs—recognised professional bodies—must not benefit from the misconduct of their members; in fact, they should be in the dock for authorising those members. What kind of supervision do they actually carry out?

The corrupt practices of the insolvency industry are also documented in last month’s publication by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Banking, Resolving Insolvency: Restoring Confidence in the System. It notes that insolvency practitioners

“sell their independence, and their considerable powers, in return for an appointment to an insolvency case.”

Who usually appoints them? Banks. So they are basically colluding with banks. The report says that conflicts of interest are regularly being ignored. The interests of banks are prioritised and too many innocent people have lost their homes, businesses and savings as a result. Your Lordships can see the evidence; it is in the monograph that I launched.

Many victims claim that banks and insolvency practitioners have forged their signatures in order to repossess assets. Evidence of that has appeared in national newspapers and on the BBC, but the National Crime Agency has sat on the evidence for months or even years and has done absolutely nothing. I have been told by authoritative sources that there are hundreds of such cases, but nothing is getting done. The recognised professional bodies are essentially accountancy trade associations—I am sorry; I will finish. They have no independence from their members and have a long history of sweeping things under their dust-laden carpets.

About a year ago, replying to one of my Written Questions, the Minister said that 7,962 insolvency cases had still not been resolved, and that their age was between five and nine years, while 3,642 were more than 10 years old, and 14,328 were more than 15 years old. No regulator asks why insolvency practitioners are milking insolvencies. The longest one that I know of lasted 30 years, and that related to Israel-British Bank. PricewaterhouseCoopers made it last for 34 years, and it came to an end when there was not a penny left in the business. These are real-life sharks, and they really need to be dealt with.

There was a report by Sally Masterton, codenamed “Project Lord Turnbull”, which was written in 2013 and formally published in June 2018 by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Business Banking. It referred to fraud at HBOS. There was no action by any recognised professional body, although the report made it clear that the fraud could not have been carried out without the complicity of the partners. There has been no investigation into the RPBs either. In the last 10 years, some 8,000 complaints about insolvency practitioners have been lodged with the RPBs and—guess what—only five out of 8,000 have had their licences withdrawn. Over the last seven years, only three IPs had their licences revoked. Is the Minister really content with that?

I finish with two specific requests. Can the Minister arrange two things? One is an independent public inquiry into the insolvency industry. Secondly, could he arrange for a relevant Minister to meet me and a former police and crime commissioner to see and hear the evidence about how banks, lawyers and insolvency practitioners are colluding and perpetrating devious practices that have deprived people of their homes, businesses and savings? I am sure that he does not tolerate corrupt practices and will willingly agree to these two requests.

19:22

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the register of interests, which includes my roles as vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a member of Kirklees Council. The Bill includes two elements, which the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, described as being “cobbled together”—I cannot but agree. The only connection that I could find was that they both relate to businesses. Clause 1 concerns business rates, and Clauses 2 and 3 address the “directors disqualification” part of the Bill title. I anticipated a rather dull afternoon discussing this, so I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for changing my view of directors’ disqualification. It has been a lively debate, and I think that a lot of people will be reading Hansard as a consequence.

I want to start by talking about Clause 1, which is the part about non-domestic rates. Many businesses have had a very tough 18 months during which they have endeavoured to keep afloat. I accept that the Government have provided considerable financial support to businesses to mitigate the worst of the impacts of the Covid pandemic. Nevertheless, it is not surprising to me that many have tried any potential route that may provide financial relief. As we have heard, this has resulted in businesses applying to the Valuation Office Agency for what is called a check of their rateable value, the aim being to get a revaluation based on material change of conditions that has impacted on their business as a consequence of Covid restrictions and measures. At this point, I thank the House Library for a very helpful explanation to a non-professional of the measures in the Bill.

The purpose of the Bill is to manage this growing number of checks. The government argument is that businesses have been able to access government loans and some grants to tide them over the Covid period and that these are sufficient to address the trading difficulties resulting from lockdowns and restrictions imposed by the Government. The problem with this argument is that, undoubtedly, some businesses will have not been able to access these funds and the recourse taken by unusually large numbers of applying for MCCs is a warning sign that all is not well. I concur with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on this matter, particularly that the £1.5 billion fund that has been set aside by the Government for relief to compensate for these changes is almost certainly inadequate. The pleas that we have heard from the noble Earl and the noble Lord, as well as from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that we must see the detail of the fund before we progress this Bill are urgent. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances that this will happen before Committee.

Clause 1 is retrospective and has a catch-all approach. The only circumstances that businesses can use to apply to the VOA will be physical changes to the property and special considerations in relation to mineral extractions and waste disposal firms. I accept that unless this legislation is passed, the business rates system will be undermined. That is its purpose, but lots of things are not adequate. I am sure that the Minister will have put them right by the time that we are in Committee.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

We have a really lively session; it is excellent.

As a measure that will deal with an immediate problem flowing from the very rare circumstances of a pandemic, we can but agree with it. However, I have a few questions for the Minister. Can he explain the financial impact of these changes on local government? About 25% of local government funding comes from business rates, so any change, however small, can have a considerable impact on really tight council budgets. It is important for those of us who are concerned about local government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said, to know exactly what the impact will be. When the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, introduced the Bill, he emphasised the importance of certainty of local government funding from business rates.

Can the Minister explain what estimations have been made of the impact of impending rises in interest rates on businesses that have accepted government loans during Covid? The implications for what might happen are obvious. Concerning the £1.5 billion relief fund, we need to know the details and what happens when the fund runs out, as I suspect it will. Also, we need answers to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, about administrative costs for local government in handling it.

Next, can the Minister say when much-needed fundamental changes to the business rate system will occur? We have been promised them for quite a long time now, and there is a lot of concern around local government and the business world that the current system is not answering the questions it needs to on town centre businesses on the one hand and digital businesses on the other, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said. My concern is about warehouse and distribution centres, which do not pay their fair share by any means. That must be put right. Finally, will the Minister confirm whether a review of these measures is being planned within, say, a year of their introduction, so that we know what is going on?

I turn to Clauses 3 and 4, which relate to director disqualification. The last-minute changes to the timing of this debate have ensured that a number of people who would have spoken are not available. This includes my noble friend Lord Fox, who actually could have spoken because the Bill he has been speaking on has finished. I am sure he will be here for Committee but he has provided me with the following words, as this is definitely not my area of knowledge, let alone expertise.

He writes that these Benches welcome the intentions of the director disqualification part of the Bill. It is right that powers be created so that those who have fraudulently benefited from payments introduced to protect businesses during Covid are brought to book and the money recovered. Like other noble Lords, we received a briefing from R3, which represents insolvency practitioners; I am sure the Minister and the department also heard from it. Its members must file a report on the directors’ conduct with the Insolvency Service when acting as officeholders in a formal insolvency process, so its experience in this is welcome. Its concerns, like ours, focus on how the Bill will actually work and how it will help the wider creditor network.

First, we should be clear about one thing. The work of the Bill should not be at the expense of investigations into insolvent rather than dissolved companies. As R3 explains:

“R3 members already repeatedly express their frustration that not all their reports highlighting suspected serious legal breaches are acted on.”


Can the Minister assure the Committee that additional resources will be available to take on the extra activity created by the Bill, rather than it cannibalising an already stretched situation? Perhaps he can offer some crumb of comfort to the wider insolvency community by talking to his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this. Given that the Chancellor is embarking on a “non-spending review”, an activity such as this which brings money both back to government and into legitimate circulation will benefit the economy and pay back many times.

Our second point seeks detail as to how in practice this legislation will recover the money. What will be the mechanisms to recoup money from culpable directors? Do the Government intend to use tools such as compensation orders? This is significant because, unlike an insolvency process, where returns are made to the creditor body, the so far little-used compensation orders normally benefit only one creditor—in this case, we guess, HMRC.

Although the Government have indicated that they will expand the number of creditors who can benefit from a compensation order, this has not been made clear in the legislation, so we have to assume they will not. Where there are multiple creditors, an insolvency procedure has to date been more successful at recovering money owed to these creditors. How will the Bill protect all the other creditors as well as HMRC? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

19:34

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests as laid out in the register. Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, one thing I am fast learning in this place is that the debates that look relatively boring often turn out to be those which have the most depth and interest, as this one has certainly proved.

I am extremely grateful for the evidence and expertise that we have heard from many speakers in the debate today, in particular from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and in the eloquent contribution from my noble friend Lord Sikka.

The Bill has the broad support of the Opposition Front Bench, but I refer to its limited objectives in that regard. The provisions to rule out Covid-19-related material change of circumstances business rates appeals, as well as the steps to give new powers to the Insolvency Service, are both appropriate and necessary.

On the first issue, we accept the logic of disqualifying Covid MCC appeals, given that a large number of these appeals could effectively result in a shadow revaluation and, as we have heard, a full revaluation is already scheduled for 2023. The demand for such appeals would certainly put strain on the system when the most effective use of the Valuation Office Agency’s time and resource is the upcoming revaluation of business rates.

On the Insolvency Service, we support the closing of a legal loophole that for too long has allowed unscrupulous company directors to evade responsibility for their financial decisions. However, I would appreciate clarification from the Minister as to whether the service has sufficient resources to carry out this extra work. I also refer to the excellent contribution from my noble friend Lady Blower, who highlighted the real risks faced by local authorities if this situation is not resolved and the impact on local ratepayer services without the necessary resource and income.

As we have heard from several contributors, there remains an enormous question around how the amount of £1.5 billion was arrived at and whether there is any realistic prospect of it being adequate. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, highlighted in particular the plight of the mega-large companies, which I think all of us have received some interest from, but also all the other anomalies—those of the smaller companies and the plight that they found themselves in. The answer to the question of resource is urgent.

With this in mind, our main concerns with the Bill are less in regard to what is in it than in regard to what is not in it. My Front Bench colleague in the other place, the shadow Chancellor, has called on the Government to cut, and eventually entirely scrap, business rates. The outdated rates system must be replaced with a new system of business taxation fit for the 21st century. We must look to shift the burden of business taxes to create a level playing field, unlike with the current system, which punishes investment, entrepreneurship and the high street. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, stressed just how urgent this situation is. We must look for more frequent revaluations, instant reductions in bills where property values fall and rewards for businesses that move into empty premises. Ultimately, this is the only way we can help bricks-and-mortar retailers compete with online tech giants. In this sense, the Bill is a missed opportunity.

In the later stages of the Bill, we will seek amendments that can pave the way for this root-and-branch reform of business rates, but also explore ways to better tackle corruption. On this, I am pleased that the Bill will help the Insolvency Service to investigate directors, take disqualification action and potentially implement 15-year bans—but again we have to ask: does the service have enough resource to tackle the job in hand?

Given the significant losses to creditors that corrupt practices in insolvency and dissolution processes can bring, we would like to see wider legislation. We know that not only do these reckless, rogue directors cause enormous harm to the economic state of affected businesses, but the emotional harm done to so many people working in business is truly immense. Unfortunately, the Bill is narrow in scope and therefore difficult to amend, but we will consider options for increasing reporting. As has been said repeatedly in this debate, the Government need to do much more.

As I said earlier, the Opposition Front Bench supports the provisions but, as is often the case with limited Bills such as this, it represents a missed opportunity. Business rates reform needs far more than a four-clause Bill to support our business community. If the Government are serious about confronting corruption, they must do far more than closing loopholes. I hope the Minister will provide assurances that the Bill is not the sum total of their efforts in these two areas.

I end by further emphasising just how important it is that draft guidance for local authorities on how to administer the scheme is laid down and published as soon as possible, including on how the resource will be apportioned between local billing authorities. I do not think it can be said often enough how stretched local authorities currently are. Budget discussions are happening across all levels of local government in a state of some despair. The atmosphere of uncertainty and concern about the future ability of councils to deliver services is something that we in this place all need to treat with the utmost seriousness and concern.

19:43

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to close what has been an engaging and informed debate. I thank noble Lords for their contributions both in the Room and in discussions outside—although I have to say that 10 officials were present for a drop-in session and no one turned up. I am very happy to have engagement on this, but it has sometimes been difficult. This is a short Bill, but the measures contained in it are important issues of public policy and I am grateful for all perspectives.

It is hugely important that the integrity and clarity of the valuation system that underpins business rates are maintained. That is why we are taking forward this important measure to clarify that coronavirus and its impacts should not be considered grounds for a material change of circumstance appeal. The alternative would be to allow the pandemic to have a hugely distorting effect on the rating system, casting local government financial planning into jeopardy. I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that these would have been considerable sums. Places such as Westminster obviously have a huge business rate base that is then allocated more widely. Clogging up the appeals courts for years to come is not the way forward and would have set a dangerous precedent for the future.

I am grateful for noble Lords’ support for the director disqualification measure in the Bill, which brings the conduct of former directors of dissolved companies into scope for investigation and potential disqualification proceedings. The United Kingdom has a world-class insolvency regime, and a strong enforcement framework is vital to that. Additionally, this measure will be an important tool for helping to combat bounce-back loan fraud and for deterring others from acting in breach of their duties as company directors.

Before I address the many points in this debate, which forms the largest part of my speech, I put on record that I have commercial property interests and am a company director—I should have raised that right at the start of my speech. Like the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I did not claim from any of the schemes that we have been discussing today to mitigate against the payment of business rates.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I have to say that the purpose of the Bill is to restore the law to its intended practice and so no ratepayer will face seeing their bill increase as a result of the Bill. There will therefore be no material impact on the ratepayer.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is a master of understanding procedure in the House, but I have been assured that this debate taking place in Grand Committee before Second Reading was agreed between the usual channels to prevent a very late sitting on Monday 18 October. In response to my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, the Second Reading will take place tomorrow but without further formal debate.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Blake of Leeds and Lady Blower, raised the issue of how the £1.5 billion would be split and the approach to that. It will be allocated to local authorities based on the stock of properties in the area whose sectors have been affected by Covid-19 and which have not been eligible for existing support linked to business rates. Local authorities will then use their knowledge of local businesses and the local economy to make awards. The noble Baronesses, Lady Blower and Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of the additional administrative burdens. This will of course fall within the new burdens doctrine so that any administrative costs to local government will be covered.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Blake and Lady Pinnock, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friends Lord Bourne and Lord Cormack, asked whether £1.5 billion is enough. This new £1.5 billion relief comes on top of an unprecedented £16 billion of relief over two years provided by the Government for the ratepayers most affected by the pandemic. This new scheme will be targeted at sectors that have been affected by Covid-19 but are not eligible for support linked to business rates. The new £1.5 billion of relief will enable local authorities to provide a meaningful level of support to those who have not been eligible for support linked to business rates.

My noble friend Lord Cormack and others raised the issue of the legislation’s retrospection. The Government are intervening because we want to ensure that the law regarding valuation operates correctly while providing significant relief to ensure that support is provided to businesses most in need. Allowing rateable values to fall for market and economy-wide matters such as the Covid-19 measures would be out of line with the principles of rating, where such matters are reflected at general revaluations. It is right that we ensure that the law continues to follow these principles.

My noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Baronesses, Lady Blower and Lady Blake, all wanted to know when the guidance for local authorities on the operation of the relief scheme will be published. I recognise that it is important because it will help local authorities make decisions over the design of the relief scheme. We will publish the final local authority guidance as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. I want to let Members know that we are engaging very closely with the Local Government Association, the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation and, obviously, CIPFA, in ensuring that we get this right.

My noble friend Lord Bourne and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, all raised the issue of airports. It is a core principle of the business rates system that market-wide economic changes affecting property values, such as the pandemic, can and should only be considered at revaluation. The drop in demand for airports in light of the pandemic is therefore exactly the sort of economic change which should not be reflected between revaluations. The next revaluation in 2023 will be based on the market on 1 April 2021 and therefore will better reflect the impact of the pandemic.

My noble friend Lord Bourne noted that the measure is itself not enough for bounce-back loan recovery. The Government have been clear that bounce-back loan facilities are loans and not grants and have worked closely with lenders to develop industry-wide principles for the collection and recovery of bounce-back loans. This includes the recovery approach that lenders should take in the event that a borrower defaults and there is a claim on the guarantee with net proceeds being returned to Her Majesty’s Government.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

That is not the specific point I was concerned about. With respect to the Minister, I quite appreciate that it is right to go after the bounce-back loans. My concern was that it did not extend to other creditors who are owed money and that there is a focus just on the bounce-back loans, whereas there is obviously a large field of creditors who have no redress if that is the only concern that the Government have.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Beyond bounce-back loans, the Government are working closely with lenders to develop industry-wide principles so that we can learn from this and apply those in areas beyond bounce-back loans. However, I will write to my noble friend on that specific point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, and my noble friend Lord Bourne asked about the funding for the Insolvency Service. The Insolvency Service’s resources are not limitless. However, all cases are carefully reviewed and assessed to determine the degree of harm caused to the public and to business, with the most serious cases prioritised.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned compensation orders and my noble friend Lord Bourne asked about the steps to get directors to reimburse. I want to clarify that compensation orders may be sought for a creditor or creditors, a class of creditors, or as a general contribution to the assets of the company. These are the rules for insolvent company director cases now and we are seeking to extend the same rules to dissolved company directors. The amount and to whom the compensation is to be paid is specified in the order or undertaking. The provision in the Bill extends this to former directors of dissolved companies, although it is unlikely that the court would order a contribution to the assets of the company in such cases.

I will not have to write to my noble friend Lord Bourne, because I have found the relevant note—I hope that noble Lords appreciate that this is not my ministerial area and I am having to pick this up as I go along. My noble friend asked whether the new measure would deal with all fraud and not just the bounce-back loans, and it will. It will, for example, deter directors from the practise of phoenixing, where the debts of one company are dumped using dissolution and a new company starts up doing the same thing. It sets that precedent to deal with the specific example of phoenixing.

In response to my noble friend Lord Holmes on the wider reform of insolvency, the Government recognise the important work that insolvency practitioners do and are currently reviewing the regulatory framework that governs them to ensure that the best possible outcomes are achieved for creditors. As part of this, the Government issued a call for evidence in 2019 to seek the views of stakeholders on the impact of the regulatory objectives introduced for the insolvency profession in 2015. The Government will respond in due course.

There was a tremendous speech from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, from which I learned an awful lot. He raised issues related to company and insolvency law. Obviously, a number of them go beyond the scope of this four-clause Bill, but we keep the wider company and insolvency law frameworks under constant review and will bring forward amendments to the House as and when needed. However, the noble Lord will know that the Government are considering wider reforms to the register of companies, and that work is ongoing. Unfortunately, it is above my pay grade to be able to approve an independent inquiry such as he called for, but I am sure he can engage with colleagues at BEIS and take forward some of those points, and I know that the team here is very aware of his concerns.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

Will the Minister be gracious enough to arrange for me and a former police and crime commissioner to see the relevant Minister so that the evidence that has been accumulated, showing corrupt practices by insolvency practitioners together with banks and lawyers, can be shown?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I think that by “a former police and crime commissioner” the noble Lord is referring to me, as a former Deputy Mayor of London for Policing and Crime. Where there is criminality, there are plenty of ways for the noble Lord to put forward his evidence. If he is having difficulty in presenting it to the Government, I shall do all I can to ensure that he gets to the right person. At the moment, this is beyond my direct area, but I am happy to engage and help him in any way possible.

I want to address a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who could not be here today, but I know will be following the debate with interest, particularly after the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. He wished to convey to me the plight of the English language teaching sector, an important sector that has suffered terribly throughout the pandemic. The Government are carefully looking at the different sectors as we design the new £1.5 billion relief scheme for businesses that have not been eligible for existing support linked to business rates. We will confirm the eligibility of sectors in due course when we publish guidance in the proper way, but certainly the English language teaching sector is one of those that we are looking at very carefully. Ultimately, decisions on individual awards of relief will be a matter for local authorities.

I thank all noble Lords for their participation and engagement. My noble friend Lord Callanan and I look forward to working with noble Lords on future stages of the Bill and, hopefully, seeing it swiftly through its remaining stages, given the support that we have seen. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 7.58 pm.

House of Lords

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Tuesday 19 October 2021

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Durham.

GPs: In-person Appointments

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked by

[Lord Balfe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure all patients can choose to have a telephone or in-person appointment with their GP; and what assessment they have made of the impact of appointments not being in person on the late diagnosis of conditions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)]

We have published a comprehensive new plan to support GPs and make it easier for patients to see or speak to GPs and their teams, based on their choice. The plan is backed up by a new £250 million winter access fund, which will help patients with urgent care needs. As part of this, practices should ensure that they are providing the right proportion of appointments for their registered population that is clinically warranted and takes account of patient preferences.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his reply but point out that one of the fundamentals of the NHS has been that the patient has decided when they wish to see the doctor. Under Covid, that has been breached many times, with doctors having far more power not to see patients. Can he assure me that the aim of the department will be to get back to a system where the patient decides whether they need to see the doctor?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I am happy to agree with the sentiment in the question from my noble friend, but it is important to make sure that we are not overly prescriptive. Patients sometimes want face-to-face consultation, but they may also be happy with a telephone call or an online consultation. At the heart of this should be patient choice.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Minister heard GPs say, as I have, that the most important question a patient asks is the one as they are leaving—the one as they are walking out of the door? Will the training of GPs be amended to cover the different listening techniques that may be required for online consultations, so that these important questions are not missed?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for sharing her expertise in this area, and absolutely agree with the question she asked. I do not have the details of the training of GPs to make sure that they are best prepared for online consultations, but I will write to her.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are in danger of looking at this issue the wrong way around? Given that there is much ongoing research into clinician and patient experience of virtual appointments, that primary care consists of many more people than just GPs, and that complex diagnoses are usually given by specialist consultants, there are multiple reasons from both the clinical and patient viewpoint for what medium to choose. Can the Minister reassure the House that there will be no blanket targets imposed on professionals for the percentage of appointments that need to be face to face, virtual or by telephone, and that GPs, patients and other clinicians are able to assess between themselves what is the most efficient medium to ensure the best possible outcome for the patient?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

What is important here is that we leave it to the relationship between the GP and the patient to decide the best form of consultation. Sometimes that will be face to face and, if the patient wants a face-to-face consultation but the GP is unable to provide one, they have to give a good medical reason why not. However, we can balance that with online and telephone appointments.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

Many GPs are feeling as if they have been completely thrown to the wolves by Ministers, and even Jeremy Hunt has said that the proposed plan and the £250 million winter access fund to support GPs and reduce the pressures they face is little more than a sticking plaster and will not help, given that the real problem is the shortage of qualified GPs. There are not even locums in many places and no longer applicants for many GP jobs. Has the Minister talked to GPs about their current extensive workload, and will he reconsider the assistance needed to support our exhausted GPs?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

It is important that we listen to GPs and understand their needs and how we can support them. We have committed to growing and diversifying the workforce and boosting GP recruitment. We have also committed to recruiting an additional 26,000 primary care staff to be embedded in multidisciplinary teams. The details of the training will be left to the trainers themselves.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, it was appropriate for GPs to avoid physical contact with their patients when the Covid risk was significant. As this abates, it is surely equally correct for GPs to agree to returning to seeing patients when they so request and where their symptoms invite further investigation. Also, rewarding GPs at a lower rate for telephone appointments and for working three rather than five days a week might serve as an effective incentive to restoring physical appointments.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

At the centre of what the department requires and expects is that GPs work with their patients to decide the most appropriate form of consultation. In some cases that will be telephone, in some cases that will be online, and in some cases it will be face to face. When the patient requests face to face and the GP refuses, they have to give a good medical reason why.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, healthcare depends crucially on the relationship between patient and professional. A recent study of Norwegian records found that the longer the relationship between an individual GP and a patient, the more you reduce the need for out-of-hours care and the likelihood of being admitted to hospital. Face-to-face consultation is important but even more important is the case manager function of the general practitioner. Can the Government make a similar study in England in terms of individual GP and patient relationships and medical outcomes, and encourage the devolved Administrations to do similar work so we can compare data?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The relationship between the patient and the GP is important, so we have made sure that choice is at its centre. As they develop the relationship, they can decide on the most appropriate way to be consulted and to give advice.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

The Government have consistently promised and failed to increase the number of GPs. Instead of the 5,000 additional ones promised in 2015, this year we have 1,300 fewer GPs. When the Health Secretary announced the £250 million winter access fund to enable GP practices to improve the availability of services to patients, where did he think those GPs would come from? Where is the magic locum tree? It is a seven-year pipeline to produce a GP. Does the Minister agree that rubbishing and attacking GPs is not going to attract medics to take up this profession?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I think we all agree that we should appreciate the work that GPs did during Covid; they were often the front line. It is important that we continue to make sure that we recruit more GPs. Some 3,793 doctors—the highest ever number—accepted a place on GP training in 2020, so I do not recognise the criticism.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to welcome the noble Lord to his new position; it is the first chance I have had to do that. Does he agree that virtual appointments increase the number of patients dealt with but not the quality of the consultation? Now that we are coming out of extreme measures, what are the Government doing to level up the worst GP practices to the standards of those undeniably excellent ones in some areas? Will he now encourage GPs to have more face-to-face appointments?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his warm welcome to me in my new role. As other noble Lords have expressed, it is really important to make sure that the relationship between patient and doctor or GP is respected. That will not always mean being seen face to face, but when a patient asks for this there has to be a good medical reason if the appointment is not. Speaking from personal experience, I have found online consultations as good as, if not sometimes better than, face-to-face appointments.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest. Last November, my father turned yellow. He rang to get a doctor’s appointment and was given a telephone consultation. He does not have a smartphone. The GP said, “It’s jaundice, but it might be pancreatic cancer.” No other suggestion was made and there was no suggestion that he could go in to see the GP. He did not know that he had a choice. He is still with us 11 months later; it clearly was not pancreatic cancer. The idea that people have choice does not work if they are not strong and vocal enough to be able to tell the GP practice, “I need a face-to-face appointment.” What will the Minister do to make patients aware that this is possible?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I sympathise with the case that the noble Baroness communicated. It is important that GPs and patients work that relationship out between themselves. If a patient asks for a face-to-face appointment and the GP refuses to give one, the GP has to have a good medical reason.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

Drugs: Black Review

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

14:46

Asked by

[Lord Moylan]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Dame Carol Black’s Review of drugs part two: prevention, treatment and recovery, published on 8 July.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)]

On 27 July, the Government published an initial response to Dame Carol Black’s review, welcoming all 32 recommendations and setting out a clear cross-government commitment to the agenda. The Government have also committed to respond to the review in full by the end of the year and to set out a long-term drug strategy which will present our whole-government response to drive down drug supply and demand.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I also welcome my noble friend to his place on the Front Bench. With entrenched drug use driving half of the nation’s crime and people with serious drug addiction occupying one in three prison places, does he accept Dame Carol Black’s finding that the current public provision for drug misuse, prevention, treatment and recovery is not fit for purpose and that Her Majesty’s Government face an unavoidable choice: invest in tackling the problem or keep paying for the consequences?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for the question and the point he made so forcefully. In January, the Government announced a £148 million crime package for 2021-22, which has been allocated to local authorities for drug treatment and recovery services, with a focus on improving services for offenders and reducing deaths. This is the largest increase in drug treatment funding for 15 years.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, we have a very good example inside the UK of the short-term impact of cutbacks in rehabilitation and treatment. In Scotland, we now have the highest level of drug-related deaths in Europe, partly as a result of cutbacks in treatment and rehabilitation made over the past decade by the Scottish Government. The UK Government share some responsibilities on drug policy with the Scottish Government under the devolution settlement, so will they guarantee to work with the Scottish Government to try to turn around this devastating situation?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

In September 2020, Kit Malthouse and Jo Churchill, the then Minister for Prevention, Public Health and Primary Care, co-chaired a UK ministerial meeting focusing on UK-wide approaches to drugs misuse. The second UK drugs ministerial took place at Hillsborough Castle in Belfast on 11 October. The Government maintain a commitment to consulting the devolved Administrations—or devolved Governments in many cases—as well as a number of expert speakers.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Government’s initial response welcoming Dame Carol Black’s recommendation to create a cross-departmental approach to tackling drugs misuse and related harm is welcome. However, they have not responded to many of the key recommendations, of which the most important is the introduction of multi-year ring-fenced funding for treatment services, distributed by local need, with at least £552 million invested in the treatment system annually by the end of year 5. When will the Government’s full response be published? Will Dame Carol’s recommendations be fully funded?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The Government have committed to giving a full response to Dame Carol Black’s review by the end of the year and have already taken action. Since part 1 of her review, the Government have announced £148 million of investment to tackle drugs misuse, supply and county-lines activity. That also includes £80 million for drug treatment and recovery services.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister consider the third option, not mentioned by my noble friend Lord Moylan; namely, a partial decriminalisation? The evidence from those European countries and US states that have pursued this course is that not only does it relieve pressure on the police, the criminal justice system and the taxpayer but it leads to a decline in the number of drugs-related deaths. I appreciate that this is a complex issue and that there are strong views on all sides, so perhaps my noble friend the Minister will consider a temporary experimental change in the laws, as Parliament did over changing our time zone, where we lift the restrictions for a year, and then at the end of that we have a vote.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for reminding us of the third option—or the third way, as some might say. It is really important that we consider all views, and I have read, over the years, many arguments in favour of liberalisation. At the same time, however, I have also read many criticisms from drug treatment charities, saying that it is not as simple as that. At this point, the Government are not committed to any trials on the basis suggested.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I refer the Minister to Dame Carol Black’s assertion that

“we can no longer, as a society, turn a blind eye to recreational drug use.”

Will the Minister make it very clear that the downgrading of cannabis—the making of cannabis legal—would send out a message that it is fine? But it is not fine for those millions of young people all over the country who get caught up with cannabis. It is a gateway drug, and the Government should not be thinking of doing anything like what the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, has suggested.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question and for her point that it is important to continue to invest in drug treatment services, but also to make sure that we stop drug users from engaging with drugs in the first place.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, among some 32 recommendations, Dame Carol stressed the importance of getting more people into treatment who require it, diverting people away from the criminal justice system, and ensuring that service users are given a wider package of support for housing, employment and mental health. With drug-related deaths in England and Wales rising for the eighth year in a row in 2020, what conclusions might be drawn about the effectiveness or otherwise of the current cross-government approach to tackling addiction? Can the Minister assure the House that wisdom will prevail such that funding for substantive health support services to tackle addiction will be announced in the comprehensive spending review?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The Government have committed to answering in full the recommendations of Dame Carol Black’s review. In terms of joined-up thinking across government, the Government established the new Joint Combating Drugs Unit—the JCDU—in July 2021 to co-ordinate, and drive a genuinely cross-government approach to, drugs policy. The JCDU brings together different government departments, including those that the noble Baroness mentioned—the Department for Health and Social Care, the Home Office, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice—to help tackle drugs misuse across society by adopting a cross-government approach.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, the drug treatment and recovery workforce has deteriorated in quantity, quality and morale in recent years, with excessive case loads, decreased training and lack of clinical supervision. How do the Government plan to increase the number of professionally qualified drug treatment staff and improve occupational standards and training requirements?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The Government will answer all the recommendations in Dame Carol Black’s review by the end of the year. In response to the noble Baroness’s specific question, I shall write to her.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

It is hard to legislate to prevent drug use when it is such big business for organised crime globally. Many equatorial countries destroy their rainforests so that they can grow drugs, because that is part of their economy. Are the Government looking at those two things: global organised crime syndicates and environmental devastation from drug growth?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Baroness raises a very important point: we should look at this more globally, not just look at our country’s drug strategy in isolation. Various departments across government are looking at that and working with partners across the world, but I shall write to the noble Baroness in more detail.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

The recurring theme in the report of the importance of holistic care—supporting individuals who use drugs with their health and well-being, housing needs and opportunities for education, training and employment—is very pleasing. It is also good that there is testimony in the report from people with lived experience, who can help to shape the support needed. Building on the question from my noble friend Lord McConnell, can the Minister explain how there will be a commitment to essential funding to put many of these excellent recommendations into practice, both in the UK and in the devolved Governments?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The Government will respond to the Dame Carol Black review by the end of the year, and that includes how much funding will be committed. The Government are committed to looking at the review’s distinct proposals to see what resources will be needed and to make that bid.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, we as a family have experienced the state of mental health services in the past six weeks, and I had the privilege of meeting numerous in-patients and the anguished, distraught parents of young people with drug-induced psychosis being looked after by the least-trained or well-equipped staff, often in the absence of adequate numbers of doctors and nurses in the ward, as well as in the community. In welcoming the noble Lord to his role, I ask him whether he will respond to Dame Carol Black’s call for £500 million for drug services. Will he argue for that and do his best to ensure that it is available to all those who need it, and will he agree to meet some of us to discuss this?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question; we have known each other for a number of years, and I have always admired the work she has done in local communities in Tower Hamlets. In response to her specific question, I will commit to meet her and others who want to discuss this issue in more detail, but we have to wait until the end of the year for the Government’s response to Dame Carol Black’s review.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.

Child Poverty: Nuffield Foundation Review

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

14:57

Asked by

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Nuffield Foundation’s review Changing patterns of poverty in early childhood, published on 14 September; and what steps they intend to take as a result, including in relation to the two-child limit for welfare benefits.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

I am pleased to say we have read and analysed the report and note its recommendations. The Government are committed to supporting low-income families and having parents in work, particularly full-time, because we believe that this is the best way to tackle child poverty. In 2019-20, 14% of children under five in working households were in absolute poverty before housing costs, compared with 52% in workless households. That is why our focus is on the Plan for Jobs, and we have no current plans to change the policy of providing support for a maximum of two children.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

I thank the Minister for her response, and for how she engages with us regularly on this, but ever since the two-child limit was introduced, successive DWP Secretaries of State have said to us and many others, “Give us the evidence that the two-child limit is increasing poverty.” The Nuffield report is the latest in what is now a long list of reports stating such evidence, so when will Her Majesty’s Government admit that this is now the biggest cause of the growth in child poverty in this country, that it is a failed policy and that it needs to be reformed?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

No admissions or confessions today, my Lords. When I read the report, I did not get from it the specific point that the right reverend Prelate made, and I think the best way, as we had such a great engagement meeting last week, is for us to sit down and go through it again so that he can make absolutely sure that I understand that point.

[Baroness Greengross (CB)]

Sir Michael Marmot’s 2020 report, produced by the Institute of Health Equity, found that the health gap between wealthy and deprived areas of the UK has grown in the past decade and that people can expect to spend more of their lives in poor health. Does the Minister agree that intervention to prevent child poverty would help reduce this health inequality in later life and, if so, what steps will the Government take to ensure that that happens?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right to point out the issues related to low income and health, and we accept that low income is associated with poorer long-term health outcomes. That is why we are continuing to support parents to get into work. Our other support includes increasing the national living wage, £6 billion a year to help parents with childcare costs, Healthy Start vouchers and a £221 million holiday and activities fund.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Nuffield report said that last year over 54% of families with young children in poverty had three or more kids, and that the recent rise in early childhood poverty is largely the result of changes to benefits policy, including the recent two-child limit. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham could not have done more—he comes back at least once a year with new evidence. The government response is always “just a little bit more”. The evidence is clear: this policy is having one effect—pushing large families into poverty. So I ask the Minister: how bad would that poverty have to get for the Government to change their mind?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right to mention the great tenacity of the right reverend Prelate in this area. The Government, however, have had to take difficult decisions—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

Yes, they have: they have had to take difficult decisions to stabilise the economy and build a welfare system that works for those who use it as well as those who pay for it. I can say only that I will meet the right reverend Prelate, and I am happy for the noble Baroness to join us. We will see what comes from that conversation.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, the children’s commissioners of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland state that the two-child limit is a clear breach of children’s human rights. Will the Government act on this, or continue to sweep aside widespread evidence that this vicious policy is increasing poverty and damaging children?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I can add nothing to the answers I have already given. The Government have no plans to change the policy.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, the problems of some low-income families are made worse by trouble between the parents. Will my noble friend give any encouragement on measures to help resolve that situation?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I am happy to say that one of the areas of responsibility in my portfolio is the programme for reducing parental conflict. I have met numerous local authorities that are delivering it and we are seeing great progress in the reduction of parental conflict. We are putting £34 million into championing family hubs, which is another great and exciting measure that we are taking during these difficult days. We want to make sure that we reduce conflict so that children get the best start in life.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

We know that many children get it in the neck from poverty. Let us hope that we can address that problem. The biggest problem that I would like the Minister to talk about is the children who are about to slip into poverty. More than 500,000 people who have not been able to pay their rent or mortgage because of Covid-19 are going to be evicted. It will be an enormous increase: what are we doing about that?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very valid point. Without trying to sideline the issue, I will go to my colleagues in the department for housing—forgive me for not knowing what it is called now; the levelling-up bastion, perhaps—and make sure that the noble Lord gets an accurate answer to that question.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

The Nuffield review outlined six elements for tackling early childhood poverty. Notably, these include, first, a multidimensional approach to multiple socioeconomic risks and the needs of families with young children, and, secondly, support for parental mental health and parenting from day one of a child’s life. What progress are the Government making in ensuring that all families have access to a welcome family hub as part of their cross-departmental best start for life policy?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

Nothing would make my heart sing more than everybody having access to a family hub. At the moment, there is £34 million for those hubs. We are doing great work with them. I have decided, because I thought that family hubs would come up today, to do an all-Peers briefing on them so that noble Lords can hear exactly what we are doing and ask all the questions they wish.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, a five year-old boy in Blackpool can expect to live for 53.3 years in good health, compared with 71.9 years for a boy born in Richmond—a truly shocking gap of 18.6 years. Last year’s report of the Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment made recommendations for reducing that gap. As part of their levelling-up agenda, how many of those recommendations have the Government implemented?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The statistic shared by the noble Lord is sobering. Again, not wishing to sidestep the issue, I will need to go to the relevant department to make sure that he gets an answer. I will make sure that it is shared with noble Lords.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister is a kind and compassionate person. Can she tell the House how this Government felt comfortable taking away the £20 uplift in universal credit just as food and fuel prices are on the way up? How will that affect the children already living in poverty?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

That is the subject of the month so we should expect noble Lords to raise it. I must say that I have answered this question a number of times. The Government’s position is clear: the uplift was a temporary solution that we extended for six months, and it is to stop. We have the household support fund, of another £500 million, and we are doing everything we can in terms of energy to make sure that people have the support they need. I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness laying all that out, rather than taking time now, to make sure that people understand.

France: AUKUS

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of France since the announcement of the AUKUS agreement.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, as neighbours, allies and partners, we have continued to engage with the French Government across a wide range of business since the AUKUS announcement.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer—what there was of it. This AUKUS treaty makes a lot of sense for the Australians. We often forget the huge sea ranges in that area. For example, it is 9,000 miles from the submarine building yards in south Australia to the Chinese yards; that is the same as the distance from London to Singapore. Nuclear submarines, not conventional ones, are needed to cover those ranges, so the Australians have made the right decision. Indeed, the fact that our three countries are working together confronts the Chinese on the grey-zone work they are doing against our agreed global values; that is a good thing.

However, it rather seems that we have left the French out on the side. They are very angry. At the NATO discussions this week, they were throwing their toys out of their cot. I would like to think that we have been talking closely with them. What I really want to ask the Minister is: are we still as close as we were in terms of Royal Navy-French navy liaison and the work that both navies do together, both in NATO and outside it?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I seek to assure the noble Lord that we recognise the significance of the French Government’s reaction to AUKUS and the strength of the feeling it has generated. We have a long-standing relationship with France in global security and defence; that is founded on firm lines, not least the Lancaster House agreements. We are both committed to the same things, whether that is NATO, Euro-Atlantic security or broader global security in the Indo-Pacific and south-east Asia. A lot binds us together. We value France’s presence as a defence partner and look forward to continuing to work with it closely.

[Baroness Fall (Con)]

I congratulate the Government on what is a very innovative new alliance, even if it was executed with maybe slightly less diplomacy for our near neighbours than it might have been. This new alliance is supportive of Australia. It reinforces the idea that China does not have free rein in the Indo-Pacific, and it reinforces the work of the Quad. With the Quad in mind, does the Minister think there will be new members of AUKUS, such as Japan?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for affirming the strategic importance of AUKUS, echoing what the noble Lord, Lord West, said. The tripartite collaboration has been formed for a specific purpose and change in that respect is not envisaged. But my noble friend is absolutely right to recognise that AUKUS complements and enhances other relationships in the region, such as the Quad, Five Eyes or the FPDA, and that reflects both NATO’s approach and the EU Indo-Pacific strategy.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, do the Government recognise that France is not only a close neighbour but also one of the few countries in the world that shares our fundamental values and interests? I support AUKUS, but was it not a great shame that no effort was made to bring France into the AUKUS conversation? Should not the Prime Minister have immediately reacted to the hurt feelings of the French by having a conversation with President Macron to see how the relationship can be put on a sound footing again?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I simply respond to the noble Lord by observing that the instigator of this new arrangement was actually Australia: it was Australia that decided that it wished to change its model of submarine. That is why it approached both the United Kingdom and the United States. As the noble Lord will understand, there are clearly issues of profound commercial sensitivity inherent within that, and that inhibited our ability to be more public or widespread in our consultations.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, when the Minister repeated the Prime Minister’s Statement on AUKUS in September, I asked what conversations the Prime Minister had had with President Macron before the announcement; answer came there none. Can the Minister please tell the House whether the Prime Minister and the Government understand the importance of the UK’s relations with France, that it remains our closest neighbour and that we should be working much more effectively to ensure that our bilateral relations and our relations within NATO are secure, because that is where our security lies?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble Baroness is correct about our relationship with NATO and the significance of NATO to Euro-Atlantic security; I entirely agree with that assessment. She is also correct that France is a very important partner and ally, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle; nobody disputes that. We continue to engage and consult at macro level. We have shared common interests, and they are best prosecuted when we work together on them. That is our agenda and our endeavour, and I am absolutely certain that it is also the French objective.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we all support the AUKUS deal, but does the Minister realise that the French are absolutely furious with us, to the extent that, only a few weeks ago, they cancelled a meeting with our Defence Secretary to look at the future of the Lancaster House agreement? We depend on France to work with us in common interests across the world, so how will the Government prevent AUKUS opening up a rift in NATO, which is central to our security in Europe and beyond, just as the alliance is working on a new strategic concept?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

This is not opening up a rift in NATO. In fact, AUKUS has reinforced a NATO leaders’ summit decision to place greater emphasis on regional partnerships; and, interestingly, AUKUS reflects the new EU strategy for the Indo-Pacific for south-east Asia. There is a shared commonality of interests when we address threat, and I think I have observed before to the noble Lord that threat does not respect boundaries. So we address threats, France addresses threats and the EU addresses threats. We do it best together, and NATO is pivotal to that. That is acknowledged by all member states.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, the purpose of the AUKUS pact is to ensure stability in Asia-Pacific. What is the strategy in the intervening years, given that the nuclear submarine programme will not be in play until 2040, before which time much can happen? Additionally, has China indicated any conventional or additional proliferation retaliatory measures? Was Five Eyes cited or consulted, as this has national, regional and potentially global security consequences?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As for the future, the UK will continue to engage with allies and partners regarding the stability of the Indo-Pacific region, whether that is through the FPDA, bilateral relationships or Five Eyes, to mention but a few. With regard to Five Eyes in particular, we are discussing the arrangement with Canada and New Zealand, because Five Eyes is a unique and highly valued partnership.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, if this is a genuine defence and security treaty and not just a subterfuge to take the contract for submarines away from France, why are Canada and New Zealand not involved from the start, as the other two of the Five Eyes?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Because this new arrangement is predicated on the desire of another state—Australia—to make changes to its submarine fleet. That was not instigated by the United Kingdom; we were approached by Australia.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, this has had an impact on our relationship, as recognised by the US State Department. The Secretary of State has spent two days in France; President Biden has spoken to President Macron. At every level there has been a connection between the US and France to improve and restore relationships. What have this Government done? Has the Minister spoken to her colleagues in the FCDO? Are they working on a common strategy to improve our relationship with our closest ally?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Yes, I want to dispel the illusion that there is some conspiracy of silence on the part of the UK; there is not. Certainly, from a defence perspective, business continues, as it has to, because of the essential nature of our activity. I was at the EI2 conference in Sweden just a few weeks ago and I spoke to Madame Parly, the French Defence Minister. We have a lot of important matters to engage upon and that is what we are doing.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, that concludes Oral Questions for today.

Arrangement of Business

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:17

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, before we move to the Motion, with the leave of the House I thought it would be helpful if I highlight some of the arrangements currently under way in relation to a new system of pass-reader voting. This afternoon, the Procedure and Privileges Committee agreed to move to a system of voting in the Lobbies and Prince’s Chamber using parliamentary passes from 1 November. The House authorities and digital teams are working hard to ensure that all necessary systems are ready by that point.

The House will be asked by the Senior Deputy Speaker to approve the new procedures for our Divisions using passes and pass readers on 25 October. One key part of getting ready for pass-reader voting is for Members of the House to register their security pass on the new system. If noble Lords do not do so, they will be unable to use the system to vote in Divisions after 1 November—if that is the decision of the House.

Registration is quick and easy: I can confirm that it took very little time this morning; it takes no more than a minute or two. There are staff waiting in the Royal Gallery this afternoon to register, until 5 pm. Members will be able to register in Millbank House Library tomorrow morning, and in the Royal Gallery tomorrow afternoon, and registration will then continue in the Royal Gallery on Thursday morning. So I urge all noble Lords to take a few minutes this week to register their pass.

Business of the House

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Motion on Standing Orders

15:19

Moved by

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

That, for the purposes of Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the order paper), on Thursday 21 October the balloted topical question for short debate in the name of Lord Tyler be treated as if it were a question for short debate so that it may be taken as lunch break business.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Second Reading (and remaining stages)

15:19

Moved by

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, in the UK there is a wide range of opportunities for people to invest and help make a better future for themselves and their families. The Government’s role is to ensure that the system of regulation is suitably robust, so that individuals are treated fairly and have confidence in the financial system that they entrust with their hard-earned savings. While our regulators are working hard to minimise harm to consumers and pensioners, unfortunately, no system of regulation can completely eradicate the risk that firms fail, or that some bad actors, intent on committing fraud, slip through the net.

This Bill relates to two areas where it is necessary for the Government to step in to ensure a fair outcome for London Capital & Finance investors and victims of pension liberation fraud. This two-measure and two-clause Bill will provide the necessary powers for these two separate groups to receive the compensation they deserve. The first clause relates to a new government scheme to compensate London Capital & Finance bondholders who lost money after the firm entered administration in 2019. The second clause seeks to provide the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the power to make a loan to the board of the Pension Protection Fund. The purpose of that loan is so the existing fraud compensation fund, which the Pension Protection Fund administers, has the necessary funds to continue to provide compensation to eligible pension schemes.

This Bill, which garnered widespread support in the other place, demonstrates that the Government will take action and step in when necessary. There are some important issues at stake. One, on which I am sure there will be considerable debate this afternoon, is the competence of the regulator. There is also the question of when and how the Government should step in to provide compensation. I would like to touch briefly on each of these issues and to provide some context for each of the measures and how they are intended to operate.

The House will be aware that the Government have committed to establishing a compensation scheme for investors in the failed mini-bond firm, so-called London Capital & Finance, or LCF. LCF was an FCA-authorised firm that sold unregulated non-transferable debt securities, commonly known as mini-bonds, to investors. Some 11,600 bondholders, many of whom had invested a significant portion of their savings, lost around £237 million when LCF went into administration in early 2019.

Following the unprecedented scale of this collapse, the Economic Secretary directed the FCA to launch an independent investigation into the FCA’s regulation and supervision of LCF. Dame Elizabeth Gloster led the investigation, which concluded that the FCA did not effectively supervise and regulate LCF during the relevant period. Dame Elizabeth’s conclusions raise serious questions about the regulator’s approach to supervision and I would like to use my remarks later in this debate to provide some further detail on the plans they have in place to address her recommendations.

LCF’s business model was highly unusual both in its scale and structure. In particular, the firm was authorised by the FCA, despite generating no income from regulated activities. This allowed LCF’s unregulated activity of selling non-transferable debt securities, commonly known as mini-bonds, to benefit from the so-called halo effect of being issued by an authorised firm, helping LCF gain respectability among bondholders, many of whom were elderly.

In response to regulatory failings detailed in Dame Elizabeth’s report, and the range of interconnected factors that led to losses for bondholders, the Government announced that they would establish a compensation scheme. The scheme will be available to all LCF bondholders who have not already received compensation from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. It will provide 80% of bondholders’ principal investment up to a limit of £68,000, which represents 80% of the compensation they would have received had they been eligible for FSCS protection. Where bondholders have received interest payments from LCF or distributions from the administrators, Smith & Williamson, these will be deducted from the amount of compensation payable.

The Government expect to pay out around £120 million in compensation to around 8,800 bondholders in total, and have committed to ensuring that the scheme has made all payments within six months of the Bill securing Royal Assent. However, it is important to emphasise that the circumstances surrounding LCF are unique and exceptional, and the Government cannot and should not be expected to stand behind every failed investment firm. This would create the wrong incentives for individuals and an unacceptable burden on the taxpayer. Ultimately, investors must choose investments that are suitable for their risk tolerance and invest in high-risk, high-reward schemes only if they are prepared to lose the sum that they invested.

Government stepping in to provide compensation in response to regulatory failure or maladministration is unusual, but not entirely without precedent. Noble Lords will recall that the Government provided compensation to investors in Barlow Clowes, an investment scheme that failed in the 1980s, and in respect of Equitable Life. Like the LCF scheme, compensation was based on a percentage of investors’ losses.

Turning to the specifics of the Bill, the LCF measure is contained in Clause 1 and includes two key elements. First, it provides parliamentary authority for the Treasury to incur expenditure in relation to the scheme. Secondly, it makes a minor technical change which disapplies the FCA’s rule-making processes for the purposes of the LCF compensation scheme. The Treasury intends to use Part 15A of the Financial Services and Markets Act to require the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to administer the scheme on the Treasury’s behalf.

By disapplying FCA rule-making requirements, existing rules pertaining to the FSCS can be applied to the scheme without the need for the FCA to undertake a lengthy public consultation and impact assessment. This reflects the fact that the Government are fully funding the scheme and so there is no need to directly consult with FCA levy payers. It also avoids any unnecessary delays to compensation payments that such consultation would inevitably entail.

As I set out, this is a two-measure Bill, the second clause of which concerns loans to the board of the Pension Protection Fund. Clause 2 will amend the Pensions Act 2004, inserting a new section, which will give the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the power to lend money to the board of the Pension Protection Fund, which manages the Fraud Compensation Fund. Pension savings are the largest financial asset for many people across the United Kingdom, for which they will save over the course of their working lives to provide for themselves in their retirement. That is why the Fraud Compensation Fund was established: to provide a safety net and pay compensation to occupational pension schemes which have lost out financially due to dishonesty.

When the Pension Protection Fund was set up in 2004, pension liberation fraud did not exist. This fraud involves members being persuaded to transfer their pension savings from legitimate to fraudulent schemes, with promises of high investment returns or access to a lump sum or loan from their pension scheme before the age of 55 without incurring a tax charge. It was not and could not have been envisaged for such schemes to be in scope for the Fraud Compensation Fund when it was established. Therefore, clarity was needed as to whether these schemes were eligible to receive compensation through the fund.

On 6 November 2020, the High Court found these pension liberation schemes to be in scope for compensation through the Fraud Compensation Fund, subject to meeting eligibility criteria. Since then, the Government and the Pension Protection Fund have worked rapidly to ensure that all those who have been victims of pension liberation schemes—an expected 8,806 people—are able to be compensated through the Fraud Compensation Fund.

One victim of this fraud is one victim too many. I reassure your Lordships that the Government are fully committed to working with regulators, the industry and enforcement agencies to protect people from pension scams perpetuated through transfers from one pension scheme to another, and to making it as hard as possible for criminals to carry out their malevolent intentions. It is estimated that the pension liberation fraud claims will exceed £350 million, far greater than the approximately £43 million currently held in the Fraud Compensation Fund. Therefore, there is a need for the Fraud Compensation Fund to have access to additional funding, and this Bill provides exactly that.

This Bill is necessary and important. It will ensure financial protection and fair outcomes for victims of pension liberation fraud. It will also provide some relief and closure for London Capital & Finance bondholders. I commend this Bill to the House and beg to move.

15:31

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to address the second part of the Bill, Clause 2, which allows the Secretary of State to

“lend money to the Board”

of the Pension Protection Fund. The background to this is that, in effect, the fund’s remit was extended to cover pension liberation schemes. I am not totally convinced by the argument that these were not known about in 2004be. Be that as it may, it is clear that, like Clause 1, this provision is necessary only because of a lamentable series of failures of Government, of legislation and of regulators.

It is of course right that members of occupational pension schemes should be compensated where they are victims of dishonesty and have a reasonable expectation that they should be protected. But we need to ask: why is this happening, and what can be done about it? This Bill is just a sticking plaster and we need to address what lies beneath. For example, we have to consider what the role of online advertising and spam has been. I have no doubt that there should be specific provisions in the draft online harms Bill, and we will certainly seek to add these when it comes before us. The Bill needs to tackle financial crime and advertising.

We have the stark warning from the House of Commons—both the Treasury Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee—that there is a risk of large financial losses to the public. This is all in the future, not something that has happened and will not happen again. The problem we face is that financial crime is ever evolving. We were told that pension scams were not recognised as a threat back in 2004. Of course, the arrangement goes back to 1995, following the Maxwell scandal. The reason pension funds are sitting ducks for this sort of fraud is that, in Willie Sutton’s apocryphal phrase, “That’s where the money is”. He was supposed to be talking about robbing banks. Here, we are talking about pension funds. Regrettably, in my view, the front door has been left open following the move to so-called pension freedoms. As well as claiming credit for the additional liberties introduced, responsibility has to be taken for the unintended consequences, which are indeed dire.

Can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to get ahead of the game—to take a lead and not just react to the latest scandal in this area? We also need to ask: what more can pension funds themselves do to protect members? I recognise the difficulties, but it is the funds with members who are not subject to fraud which will have to meet the cost of this measure. There is every incentive for the industry itself to take a lead, so what steps will the Government and the Minister be taking to encourage the development of this work?

Finally, it is worth noting the amount of money involved in dealing with pension fraud: up to £350 million in compensation, we are told. That is no mean sum, particularly when set against the existing scale of the fund when it held only £26 million. The £350 million figure was estimated a year ago, at the time of the trial. Can the Minister provide an updated estimate of what the ongoing growth in the figure will be?

15:35

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, my remarks relate to Clause 1. I preface them by saying that I have benefited from briefings by certain firms of city stockbrokers. This is obviously a regrettable but necessary Bill, which, of course, one supports. At times like this, one casts around looking for people to blame for getting us into this situation. It could be the avarice of the promoters, the weakness of the regulators or the cupidity of the private investors. It is on the last that I wish to focus my remarks, because it would be a great mistake if we were to conclude from this that private investors cannot be trusted to know where to put their money and that they should be further protected and restricted in the opportunities available to them. To take one example, over the last 12 months, literally billions of pounds have gone into Premium Bonds and National Savings products—sums totally dwarfing what was invested in London Capital & Finance—showing that private and retail investors can and do make very sensible choices.

However, it is not surprising that some private investors end up investing in dodgy minibonds, given that we have removed from them the opportunity to make respectable investments. When I refer to private investors, I am not talking about just comfortable rentiers but perfectly ordinary people, some of them called Sid. What has happened in the last 10 or 20 years to the opportunities available to them for investment in respectable securities? In the case of equities, it is true that they can invest in the secondary market, but the new issues of equity securities which it was possible for them to invest in have almost completely dried up. The IPOs no longer reach the public markets; they are all now private placements because it suits finance directors to cut the private investor out and the regulators are compliant in that: no more Sids.

What then about government bonds or gilts? These used to be available for purchase at the Post Office. If you wanted to invest in a new issue of gilts, you could literally cut a coupon out of a newspaper and send it in, making a non-competitive bid. This hardly happens anymore. Let us take, for example, the Government’s recent green gilt. It was not marketed at private investors at all. Instead, private investors will in due course be offered an opportunity to invest in the “green bond”, but, if you look at it, this is not a bond at all; it is another national savings fixed-term deposit product. The Debt Management Office says, “Why should we reach out to private investors beyond what we do? We get all the money we want from them through the existing national savings products.” But that is the attitude of the bean counter, not the nation builder.

I come finally to corporate bonds—highly rated bonds issued by large companies. The effect of European Union regulation and, particularly, the prospectus directive, which is still in force, is that a bond with a denomination of less than €100,000 requires much more elaborate regulation. When I worked in bonds 30 or 40 years ago, the private investor was the backbone of the market. The denomination of most bonds was closer to a thousand dollars or pounds than 100,000, so they were available—you could invest in them. Now, you need €100,000 just to buy one, so, of course, private investors are effectively cut out of that market, and there are other reasons why these securities are no longer available.

This is not just about where people put their money. In my view, it is about the democratisation of financial markets, or rather about their de-democratisation over the past 10 to 15 years. It is also to some extent about levelling up, and it should be on the Government’s agenda that ordinary people have access to reputable financial investment in the way that large institutional investors do, and they no longer have it. It is also about winning and maintaining popular support for the financial services markets, which are important to us and our economy. They are more fragile if they are totally disconnected from ordinary investors. This is about giving investors an opportunity to avoid having to invest in alternative, dodgy mini-bonds that in some cases need to be rescued at the expense of the Treasury.

This is a big subject and I do not expect a comprehensive answer from my noble friend this afternoon, but I hope that he will be willing to meet me and one or two City experts, and will possibly even rope in the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, because this is too important a subject for changes to be made through a whittling of regulation and other administrative changes, as we have seen over the past 15 years, without occasionally, as today perhaps, stopping to take stock of the cumulative effects.

15:41

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to make two fairly brief points in this short debate with a limited number of participants, which is disappointing given the importance of the issues behind the Bill. I go back to a much larger Bill that had a little more participation, the then Financial Services Bill, and to the Second Reading speech of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew of Oulton, who said:

“we remain committed to ensuring that the UK maintains the highest regulatory standards and remains an open and dynamic global financial centre. This is even more important now that we have left the European Union … the UK must assume full responsibility for its financial services regulation ... this will be underpinned by an unwavering commitment to high-quality, agile and responsive regulation, with a focus on safe and stable markets”.—[Official Report, 28/1/21; col. 1810.]

Does the Minister acknowledge that the need for this Bill points out that our regulatory standards are not the highest they could be, that in fact they are disastrously poor, and that this is a threat to the security of us all? Further, will he acknowledge that words such as “competitive”, “dynamic”, “agile” and “responsive” are not compatible with the desire expressed for a safe and stable financial market?

As we heard very often from the Government during the passage of the Financial Services Bill, the financial sector is regarded as a source of great profits, but we see the cost of those profits in not just the financial suffering of the people being compensated under this Bill but in the human impact. We are talking about people who have seen large chunks of their pensions savings and their entire future life disappear, with years of uncertainty ahead of them. We think about the mental and physical health impact that has on people and the threat that the financial sector is presenting.

I will move very briefly to the specifics of the Bill, and say that I look forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who I have no doubt will address regulatory failure in much greater detail. A couple of questions need to be asked. The Government have acknowledged that the LCF investors were innocent, duped and failed by the regulator, yet there is a cap on compensation of £68,000. This is a government failure; should we not be saying, as we have heard in other debates in your Lordships’ House, as with the building safety scandal, that government failure should be met by full government compensation, not people forced to lose out through no fault of their own? What about investors in Blackmore Bond, in Basset & Gold, in secured energy bonds and, indeed, in Connaught, where it was acknowledged that regulatory supervision was “not appropriate or effective”? The Government have said that this particular scheme—this Bill—has come about as a result of unique and exceptional circumstances, but does the Minister acknowledge that there is nothing unique or exceptional about this: this is business as usual in our financial sector far too often?

I turn, very briefly, to the pension liberation fraud. We have seen pensions treated as a market. It is clearly not a safe or stable market, as the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, was saying in debates on the Financial Services Bill. Should it really be a market at all?

15:46

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The London Capital & Finance scandal tells the familiar story of privatising profits, socialising losses, frauds, fiddles, mis-selling, negligent regulators and ineffective auditors, while innocent people have to pick up the tab. The much-maligned state has to come and somehow clear up the mess made by the City of London once again. I welcome the compensation for the London Capital & Finance investors, but I have a number of questions for the Minister.

There are mini-bond scandals, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, at Blackmore Bond, Basset & Gold, the Mexican food chain Chilango and many others, but no compensation has been offered, even though the FCA failed to regulate them properly. The collapse of LCF was investigated by Dame Elizabeth Gloster, but why is there no independent investigation of other mini-bond scandals? The other scandals may be smaller, but that does not mean that the pain is any less for people who have been defrauded, cheated or misled. The Government claim to have looked at 30 mini-bond firms that have failed over the last six to seven years, but have failed to elaborate whether there was any mis-selling or fraud and have certainly offered no compensation to other investors. When will the others be compensated? If the FCA’s negligence is a defining factor, as the Minister indicated, then many others also need to be compensated. For example, Neil Woodford’s Equity Income Fund collapse in the summer of 2019 left a lot of investors out of pocket. The FCA was negligent, but there has been no compensation. The independent report on the collapse of Connaught stated that the FCA supervision was “not appropriate or effective”. It could have done more to protect consumers, the report said. The investors lost over £100 million but have so far recovered only £18.5 million through litigation. Why was there no compensation for them? Again, the FCA failed.

The FCA and its predecessor bodies also failed to properly regulate RBS and HBOS, and those frauds are part of a long-running saga of pass the parcel—nobody wants to deal with it and, again, no compensation was offered. Surely, in the interests of equity and consistency, all those negatively affected by the FCA should be offered compensation. The Minister referred to the earlier precedents of Equitable Life and Barlow Clowes. In both cases, the regulators were negligent, and that is common to all the cases to which I have referred. So once again I ask, why is the LCF, which was founded by a former Conservative donor, being privileged but the others are not?

In spite of the compensation scheme, many LCF investors face huge losses because the compensation is capped at £68,000. This is not equitable. The burden of the cap is uneven and those who have less wealth stand to lose a greater proportion of it. Women are also hit particularly hard because they generally tend to have lower wealth. Some people have also invested more than the benchmark of £85,000 and they stand to lose an even bigger amount. They may well be relying on these savings for their retirement income. Again, can the Minister explain why investors are not being fully compensated? Does justice not really demand that?

Mini-bonds are just the latest instalment of the fraud and mis-selling that has been rife in the City. The FCA is always playing catch-up. After a long list of mini-bond scandals, in January 2020 it introduced a temporary ban on the sale of mini-bonds, which then became permanent in June 2020. The FCA rationale was that

“speculative mini-bonds were being promoted to retail investors who neither understood the risks involved, nor could afford the potential financial losses.”

That occurred to the FCA in only 2020—where on earth had it been while mini-bonds were openly being marketed and sold? Why the delay in recognising the danger? Even now, the FCA does not road-test any of the financial products to see under which circumstances they wreak havoc and what damage they do. The alarm bells should have been ringing long before. For example, as early as October 2015 investors on the MoneySavingExpert site were saying that LCF’s investment “sounds dodgy”. People were being warned as early as that but the FCA took no notice of those warning signs.

In April 2021, the Government issued a consultation paper on the possibility of bringing the issuance of non-transferable debt securities—that is, mini-bonds—within the scope of financial services regulation. That consultation ended on 21 July 2021. Can the Minister update us on the current position?

In the middle of 2020, the outstanding amount in the UK invested in so-called speculative illiquid securities, which includes mini-bonds, was £1.4 billion. More than 63,500 bondholders may well be holding mini-bonds so the scandal could be much bigger than the amounts currently being assigned to LCF. Can the Minister please enlighten us as to what the ultimate cost of the mini-bond scandal will be? What retribution may be levied on the FCA for its continuing failures? The LCF compensation is being paid and indeed the word “fraud” was used earlier but when was there actually a fraud conviction in connection with LCF? A number of individuals have been arrested and released but I think nobody has been convicted so far. Can the Minister update us on the progress being made by the Serious Fraud Office on this?

Regarding compensation, paragraph 35 of the Explanatory Notes says:

“The Bill confers a new power on the Secretary of State, specifically to provide a loan to the Board of the PPF … expenditure in relation to this Bill will be repaid by the income received from the FCF levy on eligible occupational pension schemes.”


In other words, those who have behaved and are honourable will be hit by the fraudulent activities of some businesses in the City.

Eventually, a loan of some £200 million to £250 million may be given, but how will it be repaid? I looked at the Pension Protection Fund’s accounts. The FCF levy for the year to 31 March 2019 was £4.8 million and for the year to 2020 it was £6.9 million. We are talking about repaying loans of up to £250 million. Will the levy double or triple? How many years will it be before these loans can be repaid? What interest rates will be charged by the Treasury or will these be interest-free loans? I look forward to some clarification from the Minister.

The FCA has been negligent, but what is the penalty? The chief executive who presided over the FCA’s negligence has subsequently been promoted and become the Governor of the Bank of England. There is no retribution against the executives who collected vast salaries and bonuses. No action has been taken against the lawyers who advised the company on particular matters. LCF collapsed some time ago. Have any of its directors been disqualified so far? What is the Insolvency Service up to? Again, I seek an update from the Minister.

I would like to raise some questions about auditors. I sought to table a probing amendment to explore this, but the Table Office told me that that cannot be done, because this is a money Bill. That was a lesson for a newcomer such as me who is learning about the various protocols and procedures of this House, so I hope the Minister will not mind if I provide some details on the issue I have in mind.

LCF was audited by three separate accounting firms. The accounts for the year to April 2015 were audited by a small company called Oliver Clive + Co Ltd. At that point, LCF had a turnover of only £14,072, profit of only £782 and share capital of just £1,000. That is hardly enough for a company entering financial services, but that is how it was doing.

The financial statements for the year to April 2016 show a turnover of £948,201, profits of £166,916 and share capital of £50,000. The company had net assets of only £25,592. That meant that the business had little capacity to absorb any financial shocks, which you will certainly experience if you dabble in the financial markets. These accounts were audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which raised absolutely no concerns about the business model or the company’s legal status. These accounts probably persuaded the FCA to give authorisation to London Capital & Finance.

The 2017 accounts were audited by Ernst & Young—the auditors seemed to change every year—which raised no concerns about the business model of the company, its legal status or its ability to recover loans of £48 million or redeem bonds of £44.5 million. The equity, or share capital, of £50,000 provided no buffer against any losses. LCF was extremely highly leveraged, with a leverage ratio of 160:1. I remind noble Lords that when Lehman Brothers collapsed, it had a leverage of 30:1. Bear Stearns had a ratio of 33:1.

This was a business with a leverage of 160:1, yet the auditors said it was a going concern and raised no red flags. The FCA did not ask any questions either. What the hell was it doing? Dame Gloster told us that the FCA had no accounting expertise. You do not need accounting expertise to realise that a leverage ratio of 160:1 will lead to disaster. However, the FCA asked absolutely no questions.

LCF had a low equity base, high leverage and low cash; that was basically its business model. It relied on the inflow of new money to redeem loans from investors, a bit like a Ponzi scheme. The LCF directors’ report claimed that

“the structure, interest profile and maturity of the company’s loan portfolio is expected to provide adequate liquidity to meet the company’s commitments to borrowers as well as providing a high degree of certainty that the company will generate revenues that will exceed the company’s expenditure base”.

The auditors showed absolutely no scepticism and simply gave it a clean bill of health.

As the Minister may recall, and if my understanding is correct, businesses authorised by the FCA must engage in a tripartite meeting between the auditor, the management and the regulator. What on earth was discussed at those meetings if high leverage was not?

The audits are currently under investigation by the Financial Reporting Council. It is extremely likely that the auditors will be fined. Noble Lords may wonder where those fines go. For the audit failure investigations before 2016, the fines went to the professional body that authorised the incompetent auditor. It is a bit like a mugger being found guilty and the judgment being that they should make the cheque payable to the muggers’ association. That is what happened.

Since that was exposed by some of us, it all changed in 2016. Now, the fines go to the Treasury. Why should the Treasury benefit from the collapse of London Capital & Finance? Will the Minister give an undertaking that, as and when the fines are levied, they will be given to investors—that they will go in the pot out of which investors will be compensated and not be kept by the Treasury?

I have one other point. The London Capital & Finance administrators are in a feeding frenzy. They have already charged fees of more than £25 million, and those fees are expected to double. Can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to curb the rapacious appetite of insolvency practitioners and other advisers, because they are removing money from investors who have already suffered?

16:02

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, found out the hard way, this is a money Bill. That means that we cannot amend it, but it raises a series of questions, especially about the regulator’s responsibilities. I intend to focus my time on those issues.

First, as I have done before, I congratulate Dame Elizabeth Gloster on her report on LCF and the regulator, the FCA. It pulled no punches. She and her team did a service not just to the victims of LCF but to all those working to eliminate abusive behaviour from our financial services industry. Not only should her recommendations be enforced—I await a detailed update from the Minister on that process; he promised it so I assume that it will come in his summation—but, frankly, they have pushed to the length of her remit.

They recommend that LCF and the FCA are not adequate to deal with the situation that has been exposed not just by this scandal but by the many other scandals about which other noble Lords have spoken today. This needs to be a launch pad for deeper change than what Dame Elizabeth was, within her remit, able to examine. I regret that, in what was actually a very useful report, the Commons Treasury Committee did not in the end require the Government to tackle many of the fundamentals.

I will focus on only two of the fundamentals, or we will be here all day. The first absolutely fundamental issue that I want to pursue is the failure of the FCA to act on information provided to it early in the day, when much of the abuse could have been halted in its tracks. Dame Elizabeth notes in detail the anonymous letter that the FCA received and ignored at the time of the first VOP application. That letter

“raised allegations of fraud and other irregularities in respect of LCF”—

I am quoting from the Gloster report.

Dame Elizabeth’s report also detailed further calls to the contact centre at the FCA—that is the main route for passing on information on misbehaviour—in July of 2016 and of 2017. All those calls and contacts were ignored. Action was taken only when, in October 2018, the intelligence team in the FCA, which appears to be completely divorced from the various contact mechanisms through which individuals report concerns to the FCA, “stumbled across”—that is a quote from the intelligence team—a report on another firm that happened to mention LCF. If it had not been in that report, even at that late date the LCF fraud problem would not have been identified.

As your Lordships may know, I am quite involved with the issue of whistleblowing. This pattern of ignoring information is not an exception; it is the norm at the FCA. I fear that even better training, which is one of the primary recommendations, will do little to help. The FCA treats information it receives from individuals slightly differently if it believes that they are whistleblowers under the definition of PIDA—in other words, if they are employees making a protected disclosure—or from other sources, but that difference is only to the extent of taking care to protect the identity of a whistleblower; otherwise, the information follows an almost identical parallel route.

In both cases, the contacts are handled by staff trained, in effect, to manage a complaints line, where the goal is to pacify the caller, who is typically regarded—I have had many discussions with the relevant people at the FCA—as a troubled individual with emotional and mental health problems. They are very kind to those people, but none of the staff has the financial expertise to recognise when they are tripping across a serious financial issue and piece of misbehaviour. Frankly, a few weeks’ training will not change that.

If I were to bring before this House the equivalent US regulator, your Lordships would find that information from contacts is triaged by expert and senior financial investigators. I am told that a minimum of five years’ investigative experience is required to take up that role, because in the US such information is treasured as vital to keep clean an industry in which the abuse of customers is a constant temptation. To get that same approach in the UK would mean turning the culture in our regulators on its head and changing the staffing profile. Frankly, it would require a whole new way of defining and handling whistleblowers, regarding them as a much broader source of information. As your Lordships know, actual whistleblowers under the PIDA definition not only find that their information is often ignored but typically are left to career-destroying retaliation by powerful employers.

I have a Private Member’s Bill before the House to create an office of the whistleblower, which could lead to many of the needed changes, but it needs the Government to make the decision that they need to step in and change that whole culture and the structure, and to put in place an appropriate framework to make sure that we look at those who pass on information and those who blow the whistle as key players in keeping clean a system such as financial services, which has so much power and money. It is, as they say in the States, the civil army that enables the regulator to keep the industry clean.

My second fundamental issue is the regulatory perimeter. The LCF case illuminates how few financial transactions engaged in by small businesses, and often by ordinary people, are actually regulated activities. The Minister said that nothing LCF did was actually a regulated activity. Indeed, this case demonstrates how a company that acquires an authorisation, and therefore is presumed by the public, businesses and ordinary people to be regulated, uses that FCA imprimatur as a false cover for the mis-selling of services.

To illustrate how limited the regulatory perimeter was in the LCF case, if you apply that perimeter, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme covered only £57.6 million of the £237 million in losses that arose from the collapse of LCF.

In recent years we have endured one scandal after another that has fallen outside the regulatory perimeter, including asset stripping by the global restructuring group of RBS, the mis-selling of interest rate caps to SMEs—I could go on for the next half hour. All of these have left victims, because the FCA took the position that it could not act to stop abuse because it was beyond the perimeter. In the end, in these high-profile events the FCA typically gets forced by public pressure and Parliament to do something and some compensation occurs, but that is not a satisfactory system.

The FCA also constantly falls back on the new senior management regime, which it cites as a strength. If ever a scheme proved to be a busted flush, it is the senior management regime. As others have pointed out, it has not been effective; it has not even been used, as far as I can tell, in the LCF case. It has been used with such a light touch—so mildly and with such deference—that frankly, it no longer has any credibility within the financial services industry. No one fears it and no one respects it. We really need to move to a global standard whereby one regulates organisations, not just activities. Without that, the UK will continue to be seen as a natural home for financial rogues who can exploit that perimeter.

I will finish by raising a couple of quick questions about the Bill itself. I join others in saying to the Minister, why does he believe that, in a case where the regulator was so much at fault—Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report does not say, “On the balance of this or on the balance of that”; it is totally damning—people should receive only 80% compensation capped at £68,000? The investors did not do wrong; indeed, they were not even greedy. They were not being offered extraordinary and exceptional returns; they all looked quite moderate. That was part of the inherent effectiveness of the mis-selling.

If I have read the Bill and the explanatory notes correctly—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—members of defined benefit pension plans who invested in LCF will be compensated pretty much in full through the pension protection fund. However, the cost of that compensation will be picked up not by the Government but by levies, as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said, on the whole body of defined benefit pensioners. Why should the entire pension system be picking up the cost of maladministration by the regulator? I am completely confused.

I am even more confused when I look at pensioners who are in defined contribution arrangements who invested in LCF. They are not going to get all their money back; their compensation will be capped at the 80% limit and the £68,000 maximum. So, depending on whether you in a defined benefit scheme or defined contribution scheme, the outcome is completely different. People who had ISAs will get their compensation, but how can they reinvest it in ISAs when there is an annual ISA limit? These were ISAs they committed to five or more years previously. How on earth is that issue going to be handled? There may be a solution, but I could not work it out, and I apologise if it is my failure to read the detail sufficiently.

Lastly, why are LCF’s victims unable to challenge this Government’s compensation scheme through a full public consultation by the FCA? The Minister said that public consultations take time, but if people are going to get back only 80%, capped at £68,000, they may well have a case that they want to put to the FCA. I do not understand why people have been put in that position. Why do we have no impact assessment? These are always missing at critical points, and they are again with this Bill.

I have some sympathy for our financial regulators, which, frankly, are under resourced and understaffed, but I am alarmed that the Government seem intent on leaving essentially untouched a flawed system, rather than taking on the challenge of fundamental change to create a regulator that the rogues in the industry will genuinely fear. As many have said, LCF is not a one-off. Every time we turn around, it seems, we have a one-off exception. We need the Minister and the Government to take heed and to act.

16:15

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, with just two substantive clauses this legislation is uncharacteristically straightforward by Treasury standards. It is also uncontentious in what it seeks to achieve. However, as we have heard, the circumstances surrounding the Bill raise important questions such as those asked by my noble friends Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Sikka. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her contribution and for setting out how the senior management regime, in respect of which so much was promised, has failed succeed.

I will not provide another account of the events leading up to the drafting of Clause 1, but it is right that bondholders be compensated for the numerous regulatory failings in respect of London Capital & Finance. We all want to see this compensation paid out, and the sooner Royal Assent is granted, the quicker that process can get under way. I am glad that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions confirmed in the Commons that the Government intend to complete payments within six months of the Bill being passed. Is the Minister confident that the preparatory work has been completed to the requisite standard to allow this to happen? Are any claims likely to be settled before Christmas?

The behaviour of LCF, which, among other things, ran multiple promotions wrongly implying that its minibond products were fully regulated, was wrong. There is no doubt about it and we must not forget it. As colleagues have noted, the Financial Conduct Authority’s response, whether to early warnings or later in the process, was unacceptable, as was recognised in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s review. The compensation burden now faced by taxpayers is arguably higher than it needed to be. Both the Government and parliamentarians should, of course, hold the FCA to account and challenge it to do better.

A variety of concerns, some specific and others more general, have rightly been raised during today’s debate, building on others voiced during the Bill’s Commons stages. For once we have little doubt that the Government agree with our discomfort. The Minister, Guy Opperman, did not mince his words when, at the beginning of the Second Reading debate in the other place, he urged the FCA to

“take a good long, hard look at itself”.—[Official Report, Commons 8/6/21; col. 905.]

The body has accepted the findings of Dame Elizabeth’s report in full and is under new leadership.

Concerns about the FCA’s willingness to hold bad actors to account are not new, nor will they go away overnight. However, during lengthy discussions on parliamentary scrutiny of the regulator during the passage of the Financial Services Bill, all sides agreed that it was for those independent bodies to determine how they ran their affairs. None of us should be happy about the events of the past, but we must allow the FCA to implement its reform programme and demonstrate an ability to do better in the future. It might be easier for concerned colleagues to trust the FCA if the Minister could confirm that, in the words of Mr Opperman, there has been “suitable input from Government”. Has the Treasury, as part of this legislative process, reiterated its views on the matter to the FCA? Does the Minister believe that the message has been heard loud and clear?

As the Minister outlined at the start of the debate, Clause 2 amends the Pensions Act 2004 and grants the Secretary of State a new power to lend money to the board of the Pension Protection Fund. It is a response to the November 2020 ruling of the High Court, which determined that claims arising from so-called pension liberation fraud fall within the remit of the Fraud Compensation Fund. We welcome the speed at which the Government are legislating on this matter, although there are questions about how the levy on pension schemes will function and what Ministers are doing to crack down on frauds and scams. My colleague Pat McFadden MP asked a series of questions that did not receive satisfactory responses. I will ask the Minister some of those questions and, if he is unable to answer them today, I hope he will commit to writing.

The levy on pension schemes, which funds compensation arising from such cases, is a flat rate. This means that schemes with a large number of members but where individual pension pots are relatively modest could end up paying a significant proportion of the overall sum. Why have the Government not formulated a more proportionate means of collecting the funds? Is that one of the trade-offs of legislating on this matter as quickly as we are?

Pat McFadden also asked whether Ministers believed that there was a causal link between the greater pension freedoms introduced in recent years and the increased incidence of scams and financial fraud. Does the Treasury believe that there is such a link and, if so, what steps are being taken to crack down on such behaviour? In so far as some scams are carried out online, will the Treasury commit to work with DCMS to ensure that the upcoming online safety Bill contains relevant safeguards?

It is unfortunate that so many people have been caught up in these cases. This Bill, however, provides a means of closing the door on some unsavoury events within the financial sector. Once compensation has been delivered, in the coming months, the key objective will be to ensure that the risk of such incidents occurring again is significantly reduced. I hope that the Minister’s response will reassure the House in this regard.

16:21

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to this afternoon’s short but important debate, and I will address as many of the issues raised as possible. A considerable number of questions were put, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. I doubt that all will be answered, but I promise that I will do my best and will write to him and others who have participated as necessary. I particularly appreciate, however, the depth of his speech.

At the core of this Bill lies the need to ensure adequate protection for ordinary people who are saving and investing for their future: individuals who, in seeking a better return for their nest egg, have suffered a financial loss which in some cases amounts to almost all their savings. As was mentioned earlier, these are not in general wealthy individuals: the average loss, for example, for a London Capital & Finance bondholder is between £15,000 and £20,000. The impacts serve to highlight the need for a regulatory system that includes the proper protections for consumers, as has been made clear in this afternoon’s debate.

I start with the issues about the failures and regulation of the Financial Conduct Authority raised by many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Moylan, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Kramer. Quite understandably there is concern over the egregious failures in relation to LCF that have been identified and described in great detail in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s comprehensive report. I echo the favourable comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, at the beginning of her speech, about the thoroughness of the report—that much, I think, we can agree on. In particular, the FCA failed to properly enforce the financial promotions regime, which seeks to ensure, among other things, that communications with customers are clear, fair and not misleading—a key theme emerging from this debate. The report also raised issues about the FCA’s ability to join the dots between different pieces of supervisory intelligence to build an accurate and comprehensive picture of what was happening at LCF. In what follows I will give what I hope will be some reassurance, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka.

The FCA has now put in place a comprehensive plan to address all Dame Elizabeth’s recommendations, including through its transformation programme. I will give a bit of detail about this. It includes strengthening the senior leadership team, recruiting more staff, providing better training, and, crucially, introducing new systems to build better intelligence on firms. The FCA’s process for authorising firms has also been strengthened considerably and, following the improvements, the percentage of applications that are withdrawn has doubled. This reflects the FCA’s desire to ensure that firms start with high standards and maintain them, with the aim of reducing the time, cost and burden of dealing with firms that fail to meet its standards.

Furthermore, the FCA has committed to reporting every six months on the progress of its transformation programme. In response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I say that my colleague in the other place the Economic Secretary continues his close dialogue with the chief executive, so that the Government are fully apprised of the progress and can hold the regulator properly to account.

I would like to touch on an interesting debate on competitiveness initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but there is not much time to expand on it. I understand her views but I do not agree with them. There is a balance to be struck between consumer protection and competitiveness. The UK has a world-leading financial services sector, employing more than a million people nationwide. These jobs are spread across all regions of the country, with two-thirds of those working outside London. The sector also supports British businesses to expand, manage cash flow, invest in themselves and ultimately create more jobs. In 2019 alone, the UK exported £60-billion worth of financial and insurance services, with a trade surplus of £41 billion.

There has been a great deal of debate about the need to improve the competitive standing of our financial services sector. However, episodes such as the collapse of LCF serve to illustrate that our world-leading sector can succeed only if it is supported by a regulator that consumers and businesses can trust, underlying the importance of the reforms already under way at the FCA. I hope this provides a more expansive answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

My noble friend Lord Moylan also raises some important points about regulation and about incentives in the retail investment market. I am of course happy to meet to discuss these matters further, and I will pass on this request for a meeting to my honourable friend the Economic Secretary. I would like to say a bit more to my noble friend, because more than a decade of rock-bottom interest rates has led some investors to seek alternative investments to generate returns. The high interest rates on offer from LCF should have prompted questions from potential bondholders about the risks. While some may have understood those risks and invested anyway, it appears that LCF’s disclosure materials and marketing strategy—back to communication —led others to believe that they were investing in a product far safer than it was.

In September, the FCA published the latest on its strategy for dealing with the problems and harms in the consumer investments market. The FCA’s goal is to see more people investing in mainstream investment products, and it has committed to explore regulatory changes to enable firms to provide more sales and support services to mass-market consumers investing in straightforward products, such as stocks and shares ISA wrappers.

The FCA has set up a dedicated team to help firms to develop mass-market automated advice models—or so-called robo advice—in its continued efforts to ensure that consumers can access high-quality, affordable and suitable financial advice, as well as free-to-access financial guidance, when they need it. The FCA is also taking action to address issues relating to inappropriate high-risk investments such as those mentioned by my noble friend Lord Moylan. For example, it is using data and technology to spot harms faster, continuing its campaign to help consumers to make better-informed investment decisions, and removing out-of-date permissions to reduce the risk of firms misleading consumers about the level of protection offered or giving credibility to unregulated activities.

We must also ensure that regulation targets the correct activities. On the specific issue of mini-bonds, the FCA introduced a ban on the sale of the most speculative and opaque instruments to retail investors in January 2020. The Treasury is also considering proposals to introduce further regulation of so-called non-transferable debt securities, following a consultation earlier this year. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked for an update on the consultation. As he may know, the consultation closed on 21 July. The Treasury is considering responses and should be in a position to decide how to proceed in the autumn—later on in the autumn, it is fair to say.

I turn to the compensation matters for LCF. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Bennett, asked: why LCF and not other firms? LCF is not the only firm to have failed and, within any healthy regulatory environment, it is inevitable that firms fail from time to time. However, this implies no complacency whatever. I have made it clear already, I hope, that we must never drop our guard on regulation but it is an important point of principle that the Government do not step in to pay compensation in respect of failed financial services firms that fall outside the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. As I have explained, this would create a moral hazard for investors and potentially lead to individuals choosing unsuitable investments, believing the Government will step in if things go wrong.

Inevitably, there will be some individuals seeking compensation in relation to other failed companies and investments. But it is important to emphasise that the situation regarding LCF is exceptional. It is the only failed firm issuing this type of opaque instrument that was authorised by the FCA. To answer the points raised, this is why LCF alone is covered by this compensation, and not the other unregulated minibonds. Let me be clear also that the fact that LCF was authorised was central to many of Dame Elizabeth’s findings. In comparison, other minibond firms such as Blackmore Bond and Basset & Gold were not authorised by the FCA. Indeed, the FCA cannot be said to have the same set of responsibilities towards failed minibond issuers that were not authorised, since the issuance of minibonds is not a regulated activity.

I turn further to the London Capital & Finance clause. The first part of the Bill will provide parliamentary authority for the Government to pay compensation to LCF bondholders. I recognise that this has been an exceptionally difficult time for bondholders, and I hope the compensation via the government scheme will offer some relief of the distress and hardship they have suffered and provide some closure on this difficult matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about consultation. A consultation and impact assessment would slow down this process and create unnecessary delays to compensation payments, hence the reason for bringing into the Bill the matter of not needing that.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about preparations to launch the scheme. The Treasury has been working closely with the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which will administer the scheme on the Government’s behalf to ensure it can launch and begin making payments swiftly after Royal Assent. This will ensure all payments can be made within six months, and I have confidence that they will succeed in that aim.

I hope this helps with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka: the Government expect to pay out around £120 million in compensation to approximately 8,800 bondholders in total. My maths is not too good, but I make that around £12,000 to £13,000 each. As noble Lords are aware, the purpose of the second clause of this Bill is simple: to ensure the Fraud Compensation Fund has the funds necessary to continue to pay compensation to eligible schemes that make a claim.

I turn to future pensions scams and how the Government can be sure that scams of this nature do not happen again. This was a key point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Davies. I would like to give some reassurance to noble Lords about the several measures being taken to look at this. To answer a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about how the pensions regulator, TPR, should be strengthened: when scam cases started to emerge over a decade ago, the Pensions Regulator was faced with a very high volume of potential investigations. To target finite resources most effectively, The Pensions Regulator prioritised resources to the highest-risk cases and took steps to liaise with other agencies to disrupt this activity. There were several reasons why the Pensions Regulator may not have taken direct action on a particular case: often, another agency was already acting or best placed to act; or, the scam was no longer actively operating, and the Pensions Regulator had to consider whether the risks to savers would be mitigated by appointing a trustee. That was then; we need to look to now.

Crucially, HMRC has tightened its schemes registration process. It now carries out a detailed risk assessment of a scheme administrator before deciding whether to register the scheme and has power to deregister a scheme where it has reason to believe the pension scheme administrator is not fit and proper. Those who have defrauded through pension liberation fraud have been deregistered and the schemes transferred to independent trustees. Companies and their directors have been referred to the Pensions Regulator for enforcement action. Some cases are also being actively considered by the Pensions Ombudsman through its pensions dishonesty unit. The Pensions Ombudsman currently has 32 pensions dishonesty complaints relating to 19 different schemes. These cases are in varying stages of the pensions dishonesty unit process. The House will know that the Pensions Regulator and the Pensions Ombudsman are independent bodies, and the Government cannot comment otherwise on individual cases.

Furthermore, the Pension Schemes Act 2021 gives the Pensions Regulator stronger powers so that savers can be confident that their pensions are protected, and the regulator can act if pensions are put at risk. DWP is now planning the secondary legislation relating to Section 125 of the Act. These measures make it significantly harder for fraudsters to successfully set up pension liberation schemes with the intention of committing fraud.

We have heard about the loan in contributions today from noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who raised the point about the expectation of cost recovery. The expectation is that costs will be recovered over a 10 to 15-year period to spread the costs for the schemes through the proposed levy. The reason a loan is required is that the Fraud Compensation Fund is currently funded by a levy on eligible occupational pension schemes which, as I said earlier, will not be sufficient to fund these additional pension liberation claims in the short term. It is a widely accepted principle that the pensions industry should meet the cost of protecting the pensions sector, rather than the taxpayer, which perhaps addresses some points raised by the noble Baroness. However, I understand that the costs must also be tolerable and manageable for the industry. The Government will therefore consult by the end of the autumn about the fraud compensation levy ceiling for all eligible occupational pension schemes.

Focusing on the levy, in particular the flat rate of the compensation levy, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, it is important to note that it is for the Pension Protection Fund to set the levy within the ceiling set in legislation, not the Government. I am told that for the 2021-22 financial year master trust schemes, to reflect their particular characteristics, are being charged an annual levy rate of 30p per member, with other eligible pension schemes being charged 75p per member.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised some points about the Pension Protection Fund. Briefly, both the PPF and the Fraud Compensation Fund were established by the Pensions Act 2004. Since coming into operation in 2005, the Pension Protection Fund has taken responsibility for more than 1,000 defined benefit pension schemes, comprising more than 260,000 members. It paid out £860 million in benefits in 2019-20, the last year for which statistics are available.

I would also like to address pension freedoms, as raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. As the House will know, pension freedoms are different from pension liberation fraud, which involves members being persuaded to transfer their pension savings from legitimate to fraudulent schemes, with promises of high investment returns or access to a loan from the pension scheme before age 55. Pension liberation fraud and pension freedoms are entirely separate issues. Pension freedoms were introduced in 2015, after these pension fraud cases. The purpose of pension freedoms is to give individuals the choice as to how to access their own hard-earned savings, as the Government believe it is right that individuals are trusted to choose how to access their pension income.

In response to the criticisms made of pensions freedoms today, I highlight that Financial Conduct Authority research has found no significant evidence of consumers drawing down their savings too quickly. The extensive retirement outcome review in June 2018 found that those withdrawing defined contribution savings had other forms of retirement income or wealth.

I turn now to points raised about the online safety matters. We heard reference to this from the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Davies. I remind noble Lords that this measure is specifically to provide a loan to the Fraud Compensation Fund, to ensure that it can compensate those who have suffered pension fraud. So, online fraud is out of scope, but I understand that the online safety Bill will not tackle fraud facilitated through paid-for advertising—a point raised, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Davies—such as advertisements on search engines. I am aware that DCMS is considering how online advertising is regulated through its online advertising programme. I have my noble friend Lord Parkinson here, who I am sure will nod his head.

In the brief time available, I will try to answer a few final questions before concluding. One point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, was on Woodford. There are important differences that distinguish LCF from the Woodford Equity Income Fund, because Woodford operated an authorised fund, which, unlike many bonds, was regulated by the FCA and was within the remit of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. This means that where individuals have a legitimate claim to compensation—for example, because products have been mis-sold—they are able to make a claim to the FSCS. As the noble Lord will know, the FCA is investigating what went wrong at the Woodford Equity Income Fund and considering what rule changes may be necessary to help prevent such issues arising in the future. It would be improper for me or the Government to intervene or comment before this investigation is complete.

Another point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on the SFO investigation. Very briefly, as he will know, the SFO launched its investigation in March 2019 and he will understand that I am not able to comment on the ongoing investigation, except to say that it is a highly complex case which the SFO is working hard to unravel. I hope that provides some reassurance.

There are some other questions but I want to address the one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on why compensation is set at 80% and the cap at £68,000. I answer that by saying that the government scheme appropriately balances the interests of bondholders and the taxpayer and will ensure that all LCF bondholders receive a fair level of compensation in respect of the financial loss they have suffered. With any investment, there is a risk that sometimes investors will lose money but, to answer the question, to avoid creating any misconception of moral hazard for investors and leading investors down the line that choosing unsuitable investments will lead them to receive compensation in full, a wide range of factors needs to be taken into account. These losses would not ordinarily be compensated for at 100%, and 80% is a level that has been set in terms of the LCF bondholders’ initial investment, taking it up to a maximum of £68,000.

Bearing in mind the time, I will certainly read Hansard and write a letter to answer any questions that I have not managed to address, if I feel that that is the case. I thank all noble Lords who have engaged in this debate and I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Report stage
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Report

16:45

Clause 1: Duty to take security measures

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

1: Clause 1, page 3, line 22, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require Parliamentary approval before regulations regarding the duty to take specified security measures are made.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 applies the affirmative procedure to the regulations made under new Section 105B in Clause 1. It requires secondary legislation to be laid in Parliament in draft and to be subject to a debate and a vote in both Houses. Clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to introduce regulations that have wide-ranging consequences for providers, and there is no provision for any independent or specialist formal oversight of these regulations. This continues a worrying trend whereby the Government make key regulations with no meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. New Section 105A introduced by Clause 1 is wide-ranging. In fact, it covers

“anything that compromises the availability, performance or functionality of the network or service”

—I repeat: “anything”.

This means that the Secretary of State has the means to make regulations that have highly onerous provisions, laying down that any provider must take “specified measures” of any kind. This is currently under the negative procedure, which, as we have noted from these Benches on many occasions, gives a near-certain guarantee of their coming into force with a minimum of scrutiny—none, it is safe to say. In Committee, the Minister’s predecessor was adamant that additional scrutiny was not desirable. She said that this was meant for technical people and had to be explained in technical language, which it was not appropriate for Parliament to discuss. However, there is the rub: the Bill covers a huge range of potential issues and, as I said, there is no formal independent or specialist oversight of these regulations, yet the Government said that they were too technical for Parliament to have its say on them. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones spoke about the Secretary of State having unfettered power and, as usual, he was right.

Since then, the Government have slightly changed their mind, and this is seen in Amendment 3. We welcome Amendment 3 as far as it goes, which, given that it is effectively a negative process, is not very far. It does demonstrate that the Government now believe that your Lordships’ House can review technical issues and that we are capable of this onerous task, which the Minister’s predecessor deemed us incapable of doing. Clause 1 covers virtually anything the Minister decides, and we are in danger of signing a blank cheque. Amendment 1 addresses this issue and gives Parliament particular scrutiny of how these regulations affect the communications networks that are so vital to the UK’s economy and our public life. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the amendment just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is about transparency, accountability and parliamentary scrutiny. It puts Parliament into the driving seat. It deserves the support of the whole House, and I hope we will give it.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, as we start Report, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, to his new ministerial role. I am sure we all look forward to working with him.

I remind the House that national security must be the first duty of any Government, which is why we welcome the intention behind the Bill. As we have said repeatedly throughout the passage of the Bill, we believe that there are a number of issues with the Bill that need to be addressed, including parliamentary oversight of the new powers, which this group focuses on. As Comms Council UK said, the Bill represents an

“unprecedented shift of power from Parliament to the Minister in relation to how telecoms networks operate”

and that

“the Minister will be able to unilaterally make decisions that impact the technical operation and direction of technology companies, with little or no oversight or accountability.”

With reference to Amendment 1, I shall not repeat the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Suffice it to say that we on these Benches appreciate and wish to stress the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, which we have stressed throughout the passage of the Bill.

I thank the Minister for tabling Amendments 3, 4 and 5. They are very similar to our Front-Bench amendments in Committee and reflect a key recommendation from the Delegated Powers Committee. I thank the former Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her work on these amendments. As noble Lords will remember, the Delegated Powers Committee called the powers in Clause 3 unacceptable and called for the negative procedure for the new telecoms security codes of practice. This important change from the Government ensures adequate parliamentary scrutiny, which is a welcome step forward.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, for the amendment standing in their names, and I thank the noble Baroness for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box in my new role.

The question underlying this group is whether the new telecoms security framework will have proper scrutiny. Noble Lords have proposed ways to strengthen that scrutiny throughout the passage of the Bill and your Lordships’ Constitution Committee and Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have made their own recommendations, and I thank those committees for their work.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, invited the Government to make a trade-off, a choice, in his words, between

“a loose definition of ‘security compromise’”

and

“a very tight way of agreeing the codes of practice.”—[Official Report, 13/7/21; col. GC 487.]

With that in mind, I turn first to Amendments 3, 4 and 5 in my name—although I should stress, as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, kindly did, that they also represent the work of my predecessor, my noble friend Lady Barran. We both listened to the arguments put forward in Committee and these amendments represent her views as well as mine.

We have carefully considered the concerns raised and, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, invited us to do, we have proposed how to make that trade-off. The government amendments we have brought forward today affect Clause 3. It provides the Secretary of State with the power to issue and revise codes of practice. The code of practice is a fundamental building block of the new telecoms security framework as it will contain specific information on how telecoms providers can meet their legal duties under any regulations made by the Secretary of State.

In its report on the Bill, the DPRRC noted the centrality of codes of practice to the new telecoms security framework. The committee drew attention to the statutory effects of codes of practice and their role in Ofcom’s regulatory oversight, and because of those factors, the committee recommended that the negative procedure should be applied to the issuing of codes of practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, tabled amendments in Committee to implement that recommendation. We are happy to do that. Our amendments today require the Government to lay a draft of any code of practice before Parliament for 40 days. Your Lordships’ House and the other place will then have that period of time to scrutinise a code of practice before it is issued.

We think that these changes strike the balance that noble Lords have called for today and in previous stages. I hope these government amendments demonstrate that we have listened and are committed to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny across all aspects of the framework.

Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, would apply the affirmative procedure to regulations made under new Section 105B in Clause 1. It would require the regulations to be laid in Parliament in draft and subject to a debate and vote in both Houses.

I share the noble Lords’ desire, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, to ensure that Parliament has a full and effective scrutiny role in this Bill, but I fear we disagree on the best way to achieve it. The only powers in the Bill that are subject to the affirmative procedure are delegated, or Henry VIII, powers that enable the amendment of penalty amounts set out in primary legislation. The Bill currently provides for the negative procedure to be used when laying the statutory instrument containing the regulations.

In the context of these new powers, the use of the negative procedure is appropriate for three reasons. First, Parliament will have had to approve the clauses in the Bill that determine the scope of regulations—Clauses 1 and 2—and the regulations will not amend primary legislation. Secondly, evolving technology and threat landscapes mean that the technical detail in regulations will need to be updated in a timely fashion to protect our networks. Thirdly and finally, as I noted in Committee, the negative procedure is the standard procedure for instruments under Section 402 of the Communications Act. The negative procedure delivers the right balance between a nimble parliamentary procedure and putting appropriate and proportionate measures in place effectively and efficiently to secure our networks.

The two noble Lords will also be aware that the changes they propose in their amendment are not ones that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made. I accept that they are keen to explore avenues for scrutiny of this framework, but that committee made its recommendation for increasing the scrutiny of this regime, and the Government have brought forward our amendments to accept it. For these reasons, we are not able to accept the noble Lords’ Amendment 1. I hope that they will be content with what we have proposed in our amendment, and may be minded to withdraw theirs.

In conclusion, the Government were asked to make a trade-off. Through the passage of this Bill, we have been invited to provide greater opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise this regime. We have listened to those concerns and we have brought forward an answer. We feel that our amendments maintain our flexibility to adapt to an ever-changing technology environment and give your Lordships’ House and the other place a greater say in its operation, so I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it was remiss of me not to welcome the Minister formally; I have welcomed him personally, but not formally. Also, it was helpful that he was the Whip during the process thus far, and I should also welcome the new Whip to his seat. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for their contributions. The fact that this has been a short debate does not mean to say that it is not an important one. The reason it is short is because we have had the same debate so many times on so many different Bills, with not just this department but others. That is why it is an important issue and why, when the Minister says that we should strike a balance, we agree, but we think the balance is in the wrong place. That is why I am unable to withdraw this amendment and I should like to test the will of the House.

16:58

Division 1

Ayes: 185

---

Labour: 96
Liberal Democrat: 66
Crossbench: 16
Independent: 6
Green Party: 1

Noes: 187

---

Conservative: 162
Crossbench: 18
Independent: 5
Labour: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

17:21

Clause 2: Duty to take measures in response to security compromises

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

2: Clause 2, page 4, line 30, at end insert—
“(7) In making regulations under this section and any code of practice made under section 105E the Secretary of State must take full account of the advice of the Technical Advisory Board established under section 105ZZ1 and of a Judicial Commissioner appointed under section 227 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 concerning the proportionality and appropriateness of any measures therein.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to take into account the advice of the Technical Advisory Board, as established in the amendment in the name of Lord Clement-Jones to insert a new Clause after Clause 14, and a Judicial Commissioner.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 2 I will speak to Amendment 7. I add my welcome to both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, in their new roles.

The Minister has now accepted in his Amendment 3 that there needs to be greater parliamentary scrutiny of codes of practice. I welcome that; I am just sad that Amendment 1 did not squeak through. However, he has not accepted the need for greater technical scrutiny of these codes. As the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said in Committee,

“the whole purpose of the regulations was to specify in greater detail what the duties of providers would be.”

Likewise, she said:

“The codes of practice will provide technical guidance to assist public telecoms providers in meeting their legal obligations.”—[Official Report, 13/7/21; cols. GC 488-93.]


However, as the industry has pointed out, there are no clear mechanisms for technical feedback or expertise to be fed into the drafting of the regulations and codes of practice.

The Minister dealt with these amendments himself in Committee. On the Clause 2 regulations, he assured us:

“Advice to the Secretary of State could”—


I emphasise “could”—

“also include relevant representations by public telecoms providers … DCMS continues routinely to engage with telecoms providers about this Bill and telecoms security more widely.”

He also said that

“Clause 3 requires that any codes of practice are finalised only after consultation with affected providers.”—[Official Report, 13/7/21; col. GC 499.]

Again, he gave no assurance of exactly with whom and how the consultation will take place, and he did not explain why he thought that a specific technical advisory board set up under this Bill was not appropriate. For that reason I have no hesitation in retabling these amendments for further consideration on Report.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, pointed out in Committee, there is good precedent in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which

“established a Technical Advisory Board to advise the Home Secretary on the reasonableness of obligations imposed on communications providers.”—[Official Report, 13/7/21; col. GC 462.]

The judicial commissioners set up under that Act could be deployed under this Bill.

This is an opportunity for the Minister to demonstrate a much firmer and more inclusive approach to technical consultation. I hope that he will accept this amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling Amendments 2 and 7 again on Report. I will not take up much time discussing them, not least because the Labour Front Bench tabled similar amendments in Committee better to understand what advice the Secretary of State will receive and where it will come from when making regulations under Clause 2. As the noble Lord said, we must ensure that the Secretary of State receives advice from the best experts, not just those who support the Government.

As the former Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, focused only on the incompatibility of a similar board set up by the Investigatory Powers Act, can the Minister today simply answer this question: without such a board, where will the Secretary of State receive advice, and from whom?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his welcome, and both him and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for retabling these amendments. We share the noble Lords’ ambition in this area. We also want to ensure that the telecoms security framework is informed by world-leading expertise, and that all those affected by the framework have appropriate mechanisms to shape it. The noble Lords’ amendments seek to establish a technical advisory board to advise the Secretary of State on matters of telecoms security. They also state that the Secretary of State should give due consideration to this new board’s advice, and that of a judicial commissioner, before making regulations or codes of practice.

I agree with the noble Lords on the importance of the Secretary of State having access to expert advice in the exercising of these new powers. I hope I can reassure them that she can already call upon sufficient advice through existing structures, and that I can demonstrate why, as we have explained previously, these amendments are not necessary, while giving the greater detail that the noble Lord asked for.

It is worth emphasising the level of expertise that DCMS itself retains, both on the telecoms sector and on security policy. DCMS is the lead Government department for the telecoms sector and has telecoms experts embedded in it. The department has established security and resilience teams with suitably cleared individuals, including people with substantial experience in national security. More widely, the department has established procedures through which it can draw upon further expertise across government and industry. Inside government, for example, the National Cyber Security Centre undertakes regular risk assessments of current and emerging threats, and those assessments are used to inform government policy. Regulations and the code of practice made through this Bill will be informed by the NCSC’s assessments. The Government also have fora in which they discuss emerging threats and new technological developments with the industry. The NCSC’s information exchange is one example. This is a trusted community of security professionals from across the telecoms sector who come together on a quarterly basis to discuss and share information on security issues and concerns.

The noble Lord’s amendment also calls for the new board and the judicial commissioner to be consulted before the establishment of new regulations and codes of practice. We share the noble Lord’s view on the importance of consultation. That is why the Bill is clear that any code of practice must be consulted on before it is introduced. However, we still differ in our opinions on who should be consulted. The consultation requirement in the Bill will enable those directly affected by the code of practice, as well as those with an interest in it, to comment and raise concerns without the need for a technical advisory board to be established. Of course, if your Lordships’ House supports the government amendments today, the code of practice itself will be subject to scrutiny both in your Lordships’ House and in another place. Furthermore, we published an illustrative draft of the regulations in January for the purpose of early engagement with the industry, and the feedback it has provided has been invaluable in our development of the policy. We continue to engage regularly and closely with public telecoms providers and trade bodies, ensuring that any concerns are effectively communicated to us. I remind noble Lords that the Secretary of State can make these regulations and measures in a code of practice only where she actively considers that the measures are appropriate and proportionate under the wording of new subsections 105D(2) and 105D(4).

To conclude, I thank the noble Lords for bringing their amendment back. As I have said, I share their ambition to create a robust, well-informed and evidence-led framework for telecoms security. We believe that we already undertake extensive engagement with the affected groups and bodies. The Bill sets out consultation requirements but even if it did not, the Government have strong relationships with those in the sector and would continue to seek their input. That is where the advice referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, would come from, as well as from across government, the NCSC and others I have mentioned. For the reasons I have set out, we are not able to accept this amendment and I hope the noble Lord will therefore withdraw it.

17:30

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply. I think he has gone as far as he can, without accepting my amendment, to try to give assurance to the industry about the nature of the consultation. I still believe that something more formal is required but I am not going to quibble about the sharing of ambition. I am sure that is right. The question is whether in practice we are going to get the result we need. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating and we will see how the regulations and the codes of practice turn out in the end. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Clause 3: Codes of practice about security measures etc

Amendments 3 to 5

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

3: Clause 3, page 5, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert—
“(2) Before issuing a code of practice under section 105E the Secretary of State must also lay a draft of the code before Parliament.(2A) If, within the 40-day period, either House of Parliament resolves not to approve the draft of the code, the code may not be issued.(2B) If no such resolution is made within that period, the code may be issued.(2C) If the code is issued, the Secretary of State must publish it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies a negative resolution procedure to the power to issue a code of practice under section 105E.

4: Clause 3, page 5, line 18, leave out “(2)” and insert “(2C)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first Government amendment to Clause 3.

5: Clause 3, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(5) In this section, the “40-day period”, in relation to a draft of a code, means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before Parliament (or, if it is not laid before each House of Parliament on the same day, the later of the 2 days on which it is laid).(6) For the purposes of calculating the 40-day period, no account is to be taken of any period during which—(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a definition of the “40-day period” into Clause 3.

Amendments 3 to 5 agreed.

Clause 13: Appeals against security decisions of OFCOM

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

6: Clause 13, leave out Clause 13
Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove Clause 13 (Appeals against security decisions of OFCOM) from the bill.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, a lack of oversight has been a persistent theme through the passage of this Bill. Included within that is judicial oversight and the fact that under Clause 13 any appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal cannot take account of the merits of a case against the Secretary of State. The rationale for this, as the Constitution Committee said in its report,

“is unclear and is not justified in the Explanatory Notes.”

It further said:

“The House may wish to ask the Government to justify reducing the powers of the Competition Appeal Tribunal in respect of appeals under clause 13.”


The clause reverses the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s TalkTalk Telecom Group plc and Vodafone Limited v Office of Communications decision, which addresses, inter alia, the standard of review on an appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal under Section 192 of the Communications Act.

The Minister’s predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said in Committee in response to the Clause 13 stand part debate:

“It merely changes the standard to which they will be reviewed. Having these cases reviewed on ordinary judicial review principles, rather than taking account of the merits of the case, aims to ensure a smooth regulatory process that focuses on fair decision-making … this should reduce any incentives for providers to litigate solely for the purpose of delaying the regulatory process.”


Note the word “merely”. This is very much for the Government’s convenience. She continued:

“It is particularly important, given that these decisions relate to the security of a provider’s network, that decisions can be addressed swiftly, and providers can get back to the important work of ensuring that their networks are secure.”


This nevertheless tries to give the impression that this is for the benefit of the providers. The noble Baroness then said that:

“Clause 13 applies to appeals only against relevant security decisions … The Government consider this approach to be appropriate to ensure that Ofcom’s regulatory decisions can only be successfully challenged when they are, broadly speaking, unlawful, irrational or procedurally unfair. By reducing providers’ incentives to litigate to delay regulatory action, the provisions in the clause contribute to Ofcom’s effectiveness as a regulator.”—[Official Report, 13/7/21; cols. GC 516-17.]


Surely in these circumstances, particularly on security, the merits of security decisions are particularly important and this is the legislative equivalent of the Government marking their own homework—or perhaps I should say making it much more difficult for it to be marked. I beg to move.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, for tabling this amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his remarks. It certainly is key that Ofcom is able to do the job that it has been entrusted to do. On the matter of providers, I would say that their primary duty has to be to ensure that the networks are secure. We should expect no less from them. I will be very interested to hear how the Minister responds to the points that have been made in respect of this amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, for tabling this amendment to Clause 13. I know the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in particular, has taken a keen interest in this area, not just in this Bill but in previous ones as well. I am grateful for the way that he set out the debate again today.

Clause 13 makes provision to ensure that the Competition Appeal Tribunal applies ordinary judicial review principles to appeals against certain security decisions made by Ofcom. Under such principles, those decisions can be successfully challenged only where they are unlawful, irrational or procedurally unfair. In setting the standard of appeal in this legislation, we must find a balance between giving telecoms providers a way to challenge Ofcom’s decisions should they be unfair and ensuring that the regulatory regime is effective and efficient.

Ofcom, as an experienced telecoms regulator, believes that changing the standard of appeal to judicial review principles for certain security decisions has the potential to make the regulatory process quicker and more efficient. The Government agree. We want to avoid either Ofcom or telecoms providers spending months in court.

It was never the intention of Parliament to set the standard of appeal, as it is now, to

“duly take into account the merits of the case”,

as this was dictated by EU law. In 2017 the Government changed the standard of appeal for reviewing decisions by Ofcom from a full merits approach to ordinary judicial review principles via Section 87 of the Digital Economy Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will well remember.

However, as EU law continued to apply, the Competition Appeal Tribunal subsequently decided that it had to apply a modified approach to

“duly take into account the merits of the case”.

In essence, this has prevented the provision in the Digital Economy Act, which had been approved by Parliament, taking effect. That rather unhappy outcome would continue to be the case for certain security decisions under the Bill should this clause not stand.

To be clear, Clause 13 applies the judicial review standard only to decisions such as those relating to the issuing of an assessment notice, which should be routine and quickly handled rather than being continuously delayed. It is not being applied to decisions about penalties such as those under Section 105T. Public telecoms providers will still be able to appeal those decisions as they do now, and the tribunal will

“duly take into account the merits of the case”.

Ultimately, we want public telecoms providers to spend their time addressing the security of the network. We do not want them to attempt indefinitely to delay an Ofcom decision by bringing cases against the regulator that do not stack up. We are not breaking new ground by changing to this standard of appeal. Judicial review principles are the normal standard by which most decisions of government and public bodies are legally reviewed.

Parliament has already decided that the standard of appeal for similar decisions under the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018 should be ordinary judicial review principles. That is consistent with our policy approach in this Bill. Therefore, the Government feel that Clause 13 should stand part of this Bill as it will contribute to the efficiency of the regime and ensure that regulatory decisions are not unduly delayed. It will also ensure legislative consistency. I hope that reassures the noble Lord and that he will be content to withdraw his objection to this clause.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am afraid it does not particularly reassure but there will be many other occasions on which we can raise the nature of judicial review, its continual erosion, the Government’s approach to judicial review and their dislike of being challenged. This is fairly thin territory on which to be debating a very large issue in terms of the future of judicial review. I am sure that my other legal colleagues will be more than able to dispute some of those issues. There are many other fish to fry of even greater importance on this Bill so I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

Amendment 7 not moved.

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

8: After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
“Network diversification
(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the impact of progress of the diversification of the telecommunications supply chain on the security of public electronic communication networks and services.(2) The report required by subsection (1) must include an assessment of the effect on the security of those networks and services of—(a) progress in network diversification set against the most recent telecommunications diversification strategy presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State;(b) likely changes in ownership or trading position of existing market players;(c) changes to the diversity of the supply chain for network equipment;(d) new areas of market consolidation and diversification risk including the cloud computing sector;(e) progress made in any aspects of the implementation of the diversification strategy not covered by paragraph (a);(f) the public funding which is available for diversification.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament.(4) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than two months after the report has been laid before Parliament, move a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the Government’s diversification strategy on the security of telecommunication networks and services, and allows for a debate in the House of Commons on the report.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 8 is in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Alton, for their support. It is, of course, the same as Amendment 24 that we saw in Committee, which requires that network diversification is reported on annually.

As we heard in Committee, there is wide cross-party support for the principle that our networks will not be secure if the supply chain is not diversified. For me, this is at the very heart of the Bill and what it should seek to address. Unfortunately, we still have a Bill that seeks to secure telecoms security yet seems to think it is possible to be silent on diversification. Even though the former Minister said in Committee that

“diversification is designed to enhance security and resilience”,—[Official Report, 15/7/21; col. GC 551.]

the Government have said that this amendment is not appropriate. The importance of the amendment could not be clearer. I remind noble Lords that, once Huawei is removed, the UK will be left with effectively only two service providers. This is a matter of the highest concern. We need and must have a diversified supply chain. That means diversity of supply at different points in the supply chain and that different networks do not all share the same vulnerabilities of a particular supplier. This is absolutely crucial for network resilience. It will also support British companies and grow British jobs.

If the Government fail to amend the Bill on this point by accepting this amendment, they are putting our national security at risk. Therefore, I will listen closely to the reply from the Minister, but I must stress that I am minded to test the opinion of this House on this matter. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. Like other noble Lords, I was remiss in not welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, to his new role earlier on. I think that is because we have all been so familiar with seeing his face throughout the proceedings on this Bill and many others. It is a great pleasure to see him in his new role.

The Government should be convinced by the arguments that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, just advanced, simply because of what their own advisers have told them: the lack of diversification constitutes

“an intolerable security and resilience risk.”

There was widespread agreement in Committee and elsewhere about that.

I draw the Minister’s attention to the as-yet undebated report of the International Relations and Defence Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve. The report, titled The UK and China’s Security and Trade Relationship: A Strategic Void, was published on 10 September. It refers specifically to the supply chain vulnerability measures in this Bill, but says that

“such vulnerabilities are widespread in the economy.”

It continues:

“In order to retain its freedom of action towards China, the Government should conduct scenario planning on supply chain vulnerabilities and identify where action is needed to mitigate the risks.”


This amendment would give the opportunity for such discussion to take place in the House of Commons. We have to think about only the case of Newport Wafer Fab to see its importance. This was a deal of £63 million regarding the UK’s largest producer of silicon chips, which are vital in products from TVs and mobile phones to cars and games consoles. As we learned in Committee, a group of UK companies has now stepped up to the plate and hopes to acquire Newport Wafer Fab. When the Minister replies, I would be most appreciative if he would say what progress has been made on that.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in supporting Amendment 8. The Government have talked a good game on diversification but are guilty of much compartmentalisation. They have put diversification on one side and security on the other. As the noble Baroness and the noble Lord suggested, you cannot separate the two. Without a diverse supply chain, there is no security.

The issue of having only two key suppliers, which the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, referred to, is down to the fact that there has been a market failure in this area. If the Government do not intervene proactively to right that market failure, we will not get out of the situation we are in now. The Bill is the only game in town to do that. This amendment is therefore really important. During debates on the Bill, a number of Peers highlighted the words of the Government’s integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy. It was clear that a

“diverse and competitive supply base for telecoms networks”

is vital to a secure future. We think these are wise words from the integrated review. As such, we are pleased to support this amendment and will be happy to vote on it in the event that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, chooses to test the will of the House.

17:45

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Fox, for tabling and signing this amendment relating to telecoms diversification. I hope that, during my remarks, I can convince them and other noble Lords that the Bill is not the right place for this amendment for two reasons: first, diversification extends well beyond the security focus of the Bill; and, secondly, legislating for a reporting requirement would be limiting and inflexible as our diversification work evolves. I will also outline the progress made against the diversification strategy, in both government policy and industry outcomes, to seek to reassure noble Lords that progress is being made in this important area.

The Bill will create one of the toughest telecoms security regimes in the world. It will protect our networks even as technologies evolve, future-proofing our critical national infrastructure. Throughout the passage of the Bill, there has been a great deal of debate about how diversification can help to support more secure and resilient telecoms infrastructure. While our work on diversification is intended to support our security and resilience ambitions, not all diversification is necessarily relevant to security and resilience.

The telecoms diversification work that the Government are undertaking moves the market forward by broadening the supplier base in many ways which fall beyond pure security measures; these include boosting quality, innovation, competition and choice within our critical networks. It is for this reason that we have consistently argued that it would be limiting for our 5G diversification strategy to appear on the face of this Bill. Legislating for a reporting element within the Bill, by the same token, would also be restrictive.

Furthermore, as the market and technology evolve, our desired outcomes and areas of focus will evolve too. For example, in the short term, a successful outcome could be a third major vendor in the mobile market. However, once open radio access networks are ready for deployment at scale in urban areas, our measure of success might be the level of interoperability within our networks.

At the moment, we are focusing efforts on diversifying the radio access network, which is where the most critical security and resilience risks are found. In future, a focus on other elements of telecoms infrastructure, including fixed networks, will be necessary to ensure all risks to the ways in which we communicate are tackled. Committing to reporting on specific criteria would limit us to reporting against the risks as we find them today; it would not afford us the flexibility that diversification requires.

While the Government cannot accept this amendment, I hope to reassure noble Lords that our work on diversification progresses—and at pace. The Government’s plans to diversify the market were set out in the 5G Supply Chain Diversification Strategy, which was published in November last year. We also established a diversification taskforce, chaired by my noble friend Lord Livingston of Parkhead, who of course has a wealth of experience in this field having served as the chief executive for BT Group. The taskforce’s role is to provide expert advice to the Government on this important agenda.

The taskforce set out its recommendations in the spring and many of its members have agreed to continue providing expertise as part of the Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification Advisory Council, which had its first meeting last month. Work is already underway to implement many of the taskforce’s recommendations and good progress has been made on the priorities set out in the strategy. For example, research and development was highlighted as a key area of focus, in order to promote open interface technologies that will establish flexibility in the market and allow a range of new, smaller suppliers to compete in a diverse marketplace.

That is why DCMS was delighted to announce the launch of the future radio access network competition on 2 July. Through this competition, up to £30 million will be invested in open RAN R&D projects across the UK to address barriers to high-performance open deployments. This competition is part of a wider programme of government initiatives to foster an open, disaggregated network ecosystem in the UK. This includes the Smart Radio Access Network Open Network Interoperability Centre—or SONIC Labs—a facility for testing interoperability and integration of open networking solutions, which opened in June. A number of leading telecoms suppliers are already working together through this facility.

The Government also continue to work with mobile operators, suppliers and users on a number of other important enablers for diversification, for example by developing a road map for the long-term use and provision of legacy network services, expected to be announced later this year. Alongside this, the Government have led efforts to engage with some of our closest international partners, through both multilateral and bilateral mechanisms, to build international consensus on this important issue. Through the UK’s G7 presidency, the Government made the first step in discussing the importance of secure and diverse supply chains among like-minded partners, and the foundational role that telecommunications infrastructure such as 5G plays in underpinning wider digital and technology infrastructure.

We have also seen movement in the market towards diversification objectives. The industry has taken steps to adopt open radio access networks, such as the European memorandum of understanding, co-signed by Telefónica and Vodafone. Furthermore, organisations such as Airspan, Mavenir, NEC and Vodafone have now announced UK-based open radio access network facilities. This demonstrates that the industry is working alongside the Government here in the UK to drive forward the change needed in the sector. That was further evidenced in Vodafone’s commitment to deploy 2,500 open radio access network sites using equipment provided by leading suppliers, including Samsung and NEC. This is the largest deployment of its kind anywhere in Europe and an important first step in delivering the goal of more open networks.

These commitments show a genuine and significant change in the diversification of our mobile networks. I hope they also demonstrate why placing strict legislative reporting requirements on this area of work would be premature. We are at a point of rapid exploration and experimentation in this work, and I hope that noble Lords would not want to inhibit that work before it has had time to mature.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, asked about the committee report. It will not fall to me to respond to that report, as I perhaps would have done in my previous role as a Whip covering the Foreign Office, among other departments. We will, of course, reply to it in full in due course. He also asked about Newport Wafer Fab. As I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, I am not able to comment on the detail of commercial transactions or of any national security assessments on a particular case. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and, as part of this, the Prime Minister has asked the National Security Adviser to review this case. Separately, work is under way to review the wider semiconductor landscape in the United Kingdom. The National Security Adviser’s review is ongoing, drawing on expertise from across government as necessary. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and will not hesitate to take further action if needed. The Government are, of course, committed to the semiconductor sector and the vital role it plays in the UK’s economy.

For the reasons that I have set out, therefore, I am not able to accept this amendment. I hope noble Lords have been reassured by what I said, and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am, of course, disappointed that the Minister cannot see that this amendment seeks to strengthen the Bill. It gives the Government an opportunity to showcase all the things of which the Minister has apprised the House. It is important to look at this proposed new clause. It would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the diversification strategy, something of which the Government are proud, and it allows for a parliamentary debate, something I would have hoped the Government would welcome, but this is clearly not the case.

As the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Alton, have indicated, the absence so far of an effective plan to diversify the supply chain is what makes us concerned about security in this country. The Bill is the opportunity to put that right. Therefore, I feel it is only right and proper, in the interests of the security of the country, that we press this matter to a vote and test the opinion of the House.

17:55

Division 2

Ayes: 180

---

Labour: 92
Liberal Democrat: 62
Crossbench: 20
Independent: 5
Green Party: 1

Noes: 176

---

Conservative: 161
Crossbench: 6
Independent: 4
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Labour: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

9: After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
“Provision of information to the Intelligence and Security Committee
The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable with a copy of—(a) any direction or notice (or part thereof) that is withheld from publication by the Secretary of State in the interests of national security in accordance with section 105Z11(2) or (3) of the Communications Act 2003;(b) any notification of contravention given by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 105Z18(1) of the Communications Act 2003; (c) any confirmation decision given by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 105Z20(2)(a) of the Communications Act 2003;(d) any reasons for making an urgent enforcement direction that are withheld by the Secretary of State in the interests of national security in accordance with section 105Z22(5) of the Communications Act 2003; and(e) any reasons for confirming or modifying an urgent enforcement direction that are withheld by the Secretary of State in the interests of national security in accordance with section 105Z23(6) of the Communications Act 2003.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is provided with any information relating to a designated vendor direction, notification of contravention, urgent enforcement action or modifications to an enforcement direction made on grounds of national security.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, to his position. I am sure we will end up speaking to each other across the Dispatch Box. I wish him all the best and good luck with the important work he will be doing as a Minister of the Crown. We all wish you well in that role.

Turning to my amendment, we appreciate that, obviously, it is sometimes difficult to strike a balance between the public availability of information, even for debate by Parliament, and national security. This amendment seeks to probe the Government’s thinking. So far, their reassurances have been somewhat lacking.

I often use, and want to use, evidence—not just what I think and others may wish to say—regarding how the Government should use the Intelligence and Security Committee. It was set up by a unanimous decision of both Houses of this Parliament because they recognised that some information is so sensitive that it cannot be put in the public domain, as that would undermine national security. No Member of this Chamber or the other place would argue with that or say that that is wrong in principle. But so far, in respect of the security aspect of telecommunications, the Government have said that the existing processes and way of doing things works. Many of us would disagree with that and feel that more reassurance needs to be offered and that the Government need to rethink this.

In moving this amendment, I will use evidence from the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee himself. I do not need to go on about this, because he summed it up in one sentence. Speaking about the Telecommunications (Security) Bill in the other place, he said:

“It is both puzzling and exasperating that the Government are yet again refusing to use the Intelligence and Security Committee for the purpose for which it was created.”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/5/21; col 286.]


That is quite a stunning sentence. I could quote the whole speech, but for me that encapsulates it. It is for the Minister say why he is wrong. Why is the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee wrong to say that about the powers in this Bill and the security issues that will arise in respect of telecommunications now and in future? Why is it wrong for the Intelligence and Security Committee to be the body that looks at that information for us?

18:15

Indeed, the Prime Minister himself agreed. Look at the Memorandum of Understanding of 2013, which was an appendix to the ISC’s annual report and governs the remit of the committee. That remit is agreed by the Prime Minister to be the purpose of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The memorandum states:

“The ISC is the only committee of Parliament that has regular access to protectively marked information that is sensitive for national security reasons: this means that only the ISC is in a position to scrutinise effectively the work of the Agencies and”—

listen to this—

“of those parts of Departments whose work is directly concerned with intelligence and security matters.”

The Prime Minister of the day, in the Memorandum of Understanding, is saying that departments whose work impacts on this should be within the remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Minister therefore needs to explain to us why this amendment is not right.

I do not want to add much to that. I have presented evidence from the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee and from the Memorandum of Understanding, agreed by the then Prime Minister, setting out the remit of that committee. For all of us who want to be sure that this Parliament has oversight of intelligence and security matters, this is an incredibly important issue. All of us value the security of our country, but we also understand that, at times, it is necessary for Parliament to scrutinise that. What is a sensible way to do that, one that does not compromise national security? Surely, is that through the Intelligence and Security Committee. That is what this amendment seeks to do, and it is for the Minister to explain why it is not necessary and why we should not put it to a vote.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, veterans of the National Security and Investment Bill—I am not sure there are any—will recognise this amendment: it is exactly the same argument that was put forward then. The response from BEIS was to set up a unit, within BEIS, that the relevant Minister said would have the necessary clearance to review potential national security information. It was quite clear to those in your Lordships’ Chamber at that time that that group of people would not get to see the sort of information that the ISC is cleared to see. We are in the same situation now. The Minister will say that there are people in his department who, if necessary, will be able to see the relevant information. That will not be the case and to some extent, those in the Minister’s department making decisions that refer to national security issues will be flying a little bit blind. If this is not recognised, that is regrettable. This is a really important area of security, and decisions should be made on the best available information, with the best available people reviewing that information. The clue is in the name: this is the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, and it is the Intelligence and Security Committee that is best able to review that information. That is why I support the noble Lord’s Amendment 9.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his kind words of welcome and for tabling this amendment. The important matter of parliamentary oversight has been raised a number of times in both your Lordships’ House and another place. I welcome the opportunity to clarify further how appropriate oversight of the Bill’s national security powers will be provided for both in this Bill and through existing mechanisms. The noble Lord’s amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee with copies of a directional notice when such documents, or parts of them, are withheld under Section 105Z11(2) or (3) in the interests of national security.

As regards enforcement, this amendment would also require the Secretary of State to provide the committee with copies of notifications of contraventions and confirmation decisions. Further, it would require the provision of reasons for giving urgent enforcement directions when withheld under Section 105Z22(5), as well as the reasons for confirming or modifying such directions when withheld under Section 105Z23(6).

We thoroughly agree with the need for effective scrutiny of the use of the Bill’s national security powers—that is why we have included measures to facilitate parliamentary oversight of the use of those powers. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament copies of designation notices, designated vendor directions, and variations or revocations of either, unless doing so would be contrary to the interests of national security. We would expect in the vast majority of cases to lay copies of the directions and notices before Parliament. However, on very rare occasions there may be instances where the Secretary of State chooses not to do so because laying the documents would be contrary to the interests of national security. This would only be done in extremis.

We have already demonstrated our commitment to transparency with the publication of the illustrative draft designated vendor direction and designation notice last November. Indeed, it is in the Government’s interest to publish such documents as it sends a clear message to industry of our intent to use the powers in the Bill where necessary. However, while the presumption is to publish the directions and notices, it is right that we have the option to protect the UK if our national security could be put at risk through their publication.

It is worth noting that, under Section 390 of the Communications Act 2003, the Secretary of State is required to prepare and lay before Parliament annual reports on their functions under that Act. Those reports will show when the Bill’s national security powers have been exercised, whether or not copies of directions or notices are laid before Parliament. This will ensure that Parliament will always be made aware of the Secretary of State’s use of the national security powers to issue designated vendor directions and designation notices.

Having thus been made aware, the Intelligence and Security Committee will be able to request relevant information from the vital organisations it already oversees, such as the National Cyber Security Centre. Moreover, the ISC will be able to request such information at any time from the NCSC in relation to its assessment of high-risk vendors. The noble Lord is right to point to the importance of the committee. Given the cross-party support he enjoys, he knows better than most, as a former Security Minister, the important work it undertakes. The ISC will be able to do the work I have just outlined in line with its remit, as set out in the provisions of the Justice and Security Act 2013 and accompanying memorandum of understanding.

At Second Reading, the Noble Lord, Lord West, noted that the ISC had made a request for its memorandum to be formally reviewed. I understand that the chairman of the ISC has written to the Cabinet Office on these matters and that they are under consideration. Discussions and decisions regarding any changes to the ISC’s remit are of course for the Cabinet Office and the ISC to agree. That is the appropriate route for the ISC’s remit to be considered, not this Bill.

As I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, however, the advice of the security services will not be the only factor that the Secretary of State will take into account when deciding what is proportionate to include in a designated vendor direction. As well as the NCSC’s advice, the Secretary of State will consider, among other things, the economic impact, the cost to industry and the impact on connectivity of the requirements in any designated vendor direction. Those go beyond security matters and indeed fall under the work of DCMS; therefore, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee is best placed to consider those wider impacts. Hence, that is the appropriate body to oversee the Government’s use of the powers to issue designation notices and designated vendor directions, including where those directions and notices are not laid before Parliament. The Government will work with the committee to ensure that it has access to all the information it needs to carry out that oversight.

Those are the reasons why the Government cannot accept the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw it on that basis.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for a generally helpful reply and for his engagement with the amendment itself, my remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It is helpful when a Minister engages with a debate, rather than just reading the words in front of him. The Minister did that, and that is to be welcomed.

The Minister offered reassurance on many of the issues that I raised—and they are issues. The debate has in some ways gone beyond the Bill itself and will help the debate within government about how to resolve the issue of national security and parliamentary scrutiny. Of particular importance was the Minister saying that the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the ISC is being reviewed. That MoU is crucial, and the debate we have had on this Bill and, indeed, this amendment, should inform the Government of the view of many in this House and beyond that the memorandum of understanding needs to be clarified and perhaps reviewed and changed. I ask the Minister to ensure that that review happens in the discussions that take place within government.

With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Amendment 10

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

10: After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
“Long-term strategy
(1) Within six months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must publish a long-term strategy on telecommunications security and resilience.(2) The strategy must include but is not limited to—(a) the objectives of the United Kingdom in working with NATO, Five Eyes partners, and other allies, on research and development, adoption and deployment, standards, and overall strategy;(b) how the strategy will provide security and resilience in the long term;(c) how this Act supports strategic objectives in the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy;(d) how this Act will complement the powers in the National Security and Investment Act 2021 in the long term and whether a review is needed;(e) whether, for the purposes of telecommunications security, an international advisory body should be set up to help coordinate, influence and develop guidance and standards;(f) how the United Kingdom, in collaboration with its allies, will monitor, horizon-scan for, and respond to, current and emerging threats;(g) whether the United Kingdom security infrastructure is adequately resourced to respond to threats against its telecommunications network;(h) how to secure the adequacy of OFCOM’s resourcing in fulfilling its functions provided in this Act.(3) The strategy must be laid before Parliament.”

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

In moving Amendment 10 I will also speak to Amendment 11 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Blencathra and Lord Fox, to which I have also put my name.

Amendment 10 seeks to future-proof the Bill. It strengthens the bonds with our international partners, ensures horizon-scanning and provides security and resilience in the long term. It again pushes the Government on a long-term strategy for the security and resilience of our telecoms network. What plans do the Government have for that?

I think all of us in this House understand that this is a fast-changing world, and many of us would not have predicted just a few years ago some of the challenges and threats we face now. Flexibility and adaptability are crucial, and a strategy needs to be put together alongside that. Indeed, the Government themselves have accepted that in their response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee document, 5G Market Diversification and Wider Lessons for Critical and Emerging Technologies. Indeed, the Government’s response says that there is a need for strategies and for the Government to look to future threats. Amendment 10 is an attempt to understand how all the Government’s various strategies—I did not count them, but they are putting forward many—will be put together to ensure that we have one overarching strategy dealing with the threats this country faces with respect to security and telecommunications, and in a way that is understandable and meets the challenges we may face in the future. As I say, the purpose of this amendment is to push the Government again on what their strategy is.

Amendment 11 is an incredibly important amendment. Leaving aside the various intellectual arguments, the policy documents that can be quoted, the evidence that can be cited and so on, the ordinary member of the public, who often gets left out of debates such as this, would say something like the following. The Five Eyes, which includes Australia and New Zealand, is one of our most important intelligence communities. Indeed, we have just signed the AUKUS deal, which does not involve all of the Five Eyes but is nevertheless important. Therefore, it is really important that within the Five Eyes there is a commonality of purpose, of understanding and of action.

18:30

If we in this country, for example, decided that X technology company was a danger to our national security, I think the ordinary person on the street, man or woman, even a child, would say, “Perhaps it might be a danger to our intelligence network, our telecommunications network, our security system”. It absolutely beggars belief that the Government are resisting an amendment which says that if one of the Five Eyes thinks that there is a problem, we should do something about it. The amendment does not even compel the Government; it merely asks them to review the situation I may have got this wrong, since I have not been in government for a while, but I am positive that if something came across the Minister’s desk, although he might not have it as an amendment in the Bill, he would review it. I fail to understand why the Government would resist an amendment that seeks to say exactly what I have said.

As I said in my previous remarks about evidence, the Government’s own document, their own recently published Global Britain in a Competitive Age: the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, agrees with me. It will be interesting to see how the Minister—and I am sure other noble Lords will come forward with their own views—will ensure the future security of the UK telecoms network. If noble Lords want to check that I am not making it up, page 75 says:

“To ensure the future security of the UK telecoms network as the basis for secure and safe CNI. Under the provisions of the Telecommunications (Security) Bill”—

it quotes the Bill—

“supported by the 5G supply chain diversification strategy, we will: manage and mitigate risks from high-risk vendors; introduce a new, robust security framework for telecoms to ensure our networks are secure and resilient to future challenges;”—

long-term strategy—

“and work with partners, including the Five Eyes, to create a more diverse and competitive supply base for telecoms networks.”

I could not put it better than the Government. As spokesperson for Her Majesty’s Opposition, I fundamentally agree with the Government in that paragraph. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, may also point out, the amendment says exactly the same, apart from adding a review, which should happen anyway.

I will be supporting Amendment 11, and I am interested in why the Government would seek to resist something that is included within their own document.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and to endorse everything he has just said about Amendments 10 and 11.

In speaking to Amendment 11, about which I hope to seek the opinion of the House if there is not a satisfactory reply to the debate, although I hope there will be, I should say that I moved a similar amendment in Committee on 13 July. As in Committee, the amendment enjoys all-party support from across the House; I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but also to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Fox, for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has spelled out that it would insert a new clause requiring the Government to review any telecommunications company based in foreign countries which have been banned in a Five Eyes country. It is quite straightforward. This amendment would strengthen international action and bolster UK resilience and security.

If such a provision had previously existed in statute, it might have saved this country a great deal of money over the expensive 5G Huawei debacle, which we have known was a security risk since 2013. If the House approves this amendment today, it will send a clear signal that the Bill must be further strengthened to deal with companies that have been banned in other jurisdictions, the need to dig deeper into ownership and investment of companies and the desirability of acting in concert with our Five Eyes allies. Significantly—I suppose this is another development, as the noble Lord just referred to, since Committee—there has been the, in my view, very welcome decision to create AUKUS, the security pact in the Asia-Pacific which, in addition to giving Australia greater defence capacity, also covers AI and other technologies.

At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, urged us to work

“in close partnership with our Five Eyes allies”.—[Official Report, 29/6/21; col. 727.]

She was right. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked us to guard against “another costly security debacle”. She was right. My noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup told us that we

“need to develop an approach … that constantly monitors and rebalances this equation in the context of our complex and dynamic world.”—[Official Report, 29/6/21; col. 715.]

He was right, and the amendments seek to do just that.

In Committee, I detailed many of the companies that have now been proscribed and banned in the United States of America. I would be grateful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—I asked this question in Committee, he will recall—if we have looked at those companies, and what action we are now taking against those that are on the list that President Biden has published. Specifically, I refer to one example, Hikvision. This is what the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons said in its unanimous report. The committee recommended

“that the Government prohibits organisations and individuals in the UK from doing business with any companies known to be associated with the Xinjiang atrocities through the sanctions regime. The Government should prohibit UK firms and public sector bodies from conducting business with, investing in, or entering into partnerships with such Chinese firms”.

I raised that in Committee. Have we acted in concert with principal Five Eyes allies in prohibiting Hikvision or not?

The failure to co-ordinate with allies leads to costs and uncertainty for business and endangers our national interest. The Government’s own estimate, based on the Huawei decision, is that it cost the Exchequer some £2 billion, excluding the broader economic cost of a delayed rollout of the 5G network caused by having to change horses. Earlier collective action could have prevented the later expensive U-turns.

Amendment 11 seeks to better protect our national interest in concert with our allies in the free world. I commend the amendment to the House.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am used to hearing powerful speeches from my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool, but what a delight it was to hear also the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. He spelled it out exactly: it beggars belief. I cannot believe that my noble friend, a wise and intelligent Minister, will reject this amendment.

I support Amendment 11, which does not detract from the Bill in any way; it does not sabotage the Bill or pull the guts out of it, it merely adds to our arsenal. All it asks the Government to do, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out, is to review the security arrangements with a telecoms provider if one of our vital, strategic Five Eyes partners bans its equipment. We are not calling for a similar immediate ban, or an eventual ban, we are just saying let us review it and come to a conclusion.

Why do I want this added? My motivation is quite simple: I believe this will be another small warning shot to China that we will start to stand up to its aggression. I share the view of the new head of MI5, Mr Ken McCallum, that Russia is an irritation but China is a threat to world peace and our whole western way of life. Yes, Russia—or Putin, more accurately—is nasty and will happily kill opponents, as we saw in Salisbury, and attempt to interfere in elections, but Russia is not capable and is afraid of the consequences of waging a world war.

China, I believe, does not share that view. It is building that massive economic and military capacity to dominate the whole world. It will overtake the USA in military capability in the next few years and has already overtaken all western powers in its attitude to using force. It is not that China wants war: it believes that war will not be necessary, since it will win when we surrender without firing a shot. If it attacks Taiwan, will the USA and the UK rush to support it? I hope so, but I do not hold my breath. China believes we do not have the moral guts to do as we did with plucky little Belgium before the First World War or Poland before the second, and guarantee their security.

To return to this amendment, it is a small symbol of our intention to begin our moral fightback—to say that we will not be bullied by China, either in our universities and supply chains or in the freedom of the seas. China has been achieving world domination by small incremental steps: making the WHO its puppet; infiltrating universities; subtly taking over international organisations; robbing African countries of all their minerals as payback for loans; and stealing every bit of technology that it can. It is, therefore, by incremental steps, such as this little amendment, that we will show that we will not be cowed—that we will resist and not become China’s slaves.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, there are many merits to the plans, set out by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in Amendment 10, for the Secretary of State to publish a long-term strategy on telecommunications security and resilience. However, in the interests of time, I will quickly shift my focus to Amendment 11 and disappoint the House by saying that my words will be brief. The House has heard very strong speeches, not just from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, but from the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Blencathra, and it is a pleasure to see my name alongside theirs on this amendment.

The point has been made three times: this is a very small ask of the Government. Referring back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, working closely with our Five Eyes partners was identified as the whole point—certainly a key objective—in the integrated review. It is one of the central pillars of our security planning. So we are not asking for something outrageous. There is a strong theme of working with our Five Eyes allies across the field of security. The UK has to work with other countries to be effective—and if not with these countries then which?

The UK’s telecoms networks face the same challenges as those of our key allies, and this amendment simply ensures that when it comes to this most crucial component of security—increasingly, communications are at the heart of all our security decisions, whether we are finding things out, transmitting information or looking at what others are doing—we take into consideration what those allies are doing. If we were not doing this, there would be a strong danger of putting a wedge between us and them. Indeed, we began to see that happening with the United States, before this Government decided to change their mind over the Huawei decision—for which some noble Lords present should take a lot of credit.

The question we have to ask ourselves, therefore—it is very difficult to understand the answers, so I look forward to the Minister’s reply—is why the Government are not adopting this amendment. The Minister may take the stance that it is not necessary. If so, it is not a problem and could be included. More worryingly, does the Minister know that this is perhaps the thin end of a wedge, and that there is a lot more technology already installed in our infrastructure across the country that the Government would have to start to remove? If there is, it would be expensive but important to do. Or perhaps the reason is the worst of all excuses: that the Government did not think of it and so are resisting suggestions from others, which is the worst sort of institutional resistance, of a kind that we see all the time.

We on these Benches, therefore, support this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and if he sees fit to lead us through that virtual Lobby, we will be virtually beside him.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I add a brief word of support for all the sentiments expressed so far in this debate, and for the excellent way in which they have been presented. I very much look forward to hearing my noble friend’s reply as to the problem that the Government have in accepting what seems to be their own wording into this Bill, thereby reinforcing this country’s stance against some of the most egregious regimes in the world and staying as close as we can to our Five Eyes allies.

18:45

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra, for tabling these amendments, which relate to our national security strategy and engagement with our Five Eyes partners.

The Government’s first and overriding priority is to protect and promote the interests of the British people through our actions at home and overseas. That is a message central to our integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, and one that Ministers in the other place have repeated during the passage of this Bill. What I have heard very clearly in this short but powerful debate is that, regardless of party or affiliation, noble Lords across the House agree that we must do what we can to protect our national security interests.

That is precisely why we have introduced this Bill. It is why we have published the integrated review and why we have such close working relationships with our allies—not only in the Five Eyes but also among our European neighbours and beyond. So I welcome the spirit in which Amendments 10 and 11 have been put forward. I say that so that noble Lords will know that we share their instincts and ambitions in this crucial area, even though we cannot support these amendments today, as I will explain.

I start by addressing Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. This amendment would require the Government to publish a long-term telecoms security and resilience strategy, covering various topics, within six months of the Bill’s Royal Assent. It would require this strategy to be laid before Parliament. This amendment is similar to the one tabled by the noble Lord in Committee, except that here he has made additional reference to reporting on Ofcom resources.

As I have said, the Government take their responsibility to protect the British public very seriously. We welcome and share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that this country is prepared to overcome future challenges to the security of our telecommunications. However, we have—as the noble Lord noted—already published and are implementing a number of strategies that will ensure that our national security in general, and the security of our telecoms networks and services in particular, are safeguarded.

I mentioned the integrated review. That overarching review sets out our commitment to security and resilience, so that that the British people are protected against threats. This starts at home, by defending our people, territory, critical national infrastructure, democratic institutions and way of life, and by reducing our vulnerability to the threat from other states, terrorism and serious and organised crime.

The noble Lord asked where the hierarchy lies. While the integrated review sets out our overall approach across government, the UK telecoms supply chain review guides our work on security and resilience in the telecoms sector specifically. The Government continue to implement the recommendations of the UK Telecoms Supply Chain Review Report, published in 2019. Alongside that, we continue our crucial work on supply chain resilience via implementation of the 5G Supply Chain Diversification Strategy, published last year, which we have debated during the passage of this Bill.

More broadly, the Government’s approach to telecoms security is informed by other cross-government priorities. In March we announced our intention to develop a comprehensive national cyber strategy as part of the integrated review. The cyber strategy will set out the UK’s approach to deterring our adversaries and ensuring that the technologies of the future are safe and secure. Furthermore, the Government intend to engage more widely with partners on the details of that strategy and publish it later this year, ensuring that our plans are aligned with funding decisions in the forthcoming spending review.

As set out in Committee, the Government are also in the process of developing a national resilience strategy that will provide a single, coherent approach to the way the UK approaches national resilience. That will be published in early 2022 and will provide a foundation on which to build a clear and co-ordinated approach to the whole range of resilience challenges.

Through his proposed Amendment 10 I think the noble Lord is seeking reassurance that the UK is working with our international partners to achieve shared objectives, and I am very happy to set out how we are doing that. The Government engage regularly with partner countries, including those mentioned in the noble Lord’s amendment: NATO and the Five Eyes allies. We are committed to a strong and deep relationship with our allies. We have held detailed and productive talks with partner Governments throughout the development of the Bill and will continue to do so as and when it is passed.

Similarly, the Government recognise that co-operation on international standards is vital to our joint efforts as we look to the future. We are working closely with the industry, the National Cyber Security Centre, Ofcom and a wide range of international partners to increase the UK’s influence and presence at major standards development organisations, such as ETSI and 3GPP.

Through his amendment the noble Lord is also, I think, seeking reassurance about the adequacy of Ofcom’s funding for its security arrangements. As the telecoms regulator, Ofcom will have a vital role to play in the compliance and enforcement arrangements for the new security framework. We are working with Ofcom to ensure that it has the required resources to meet its new responsibilities. Ofcom’s budget for telecoms security this financial year has been increased by £4.6 million to reflect that enhanced security role.

As I have explained, we will continue to ensure that our approach to telecoms security is kept up to date in response to the changes in threats and technology. For those reasons, I do not believe that Amendment 10 is necessary, and I hope that, when we come to it, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw it and to see that we are indeed working with our allies on this important area, as he rightly asked.

Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Fox and Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra, seeks to ensure that we take account of the actions of our Five Eyes partners. It would require the Secretary of State to review decisions taken by Five Eyes partners to ban telecoms vendors on security grounds. In particular, it would require the Secretary of State to review the UK’s security arrangements with that vendor and to consider whether to issue a designated vendor direction or to take similar action in the UK.

We certainly agree that the UK Government should engage with international partners, including our important allies in the Five Eyes alliance. That is what we have been doing throughout the drafting of the Bill and what we will continue to do once it has passed. Our Five Eyes relationship is robust, and the UK is committed to a close and enduring partnership. The Five Eyes intelligence and security agencies maintain very close co-operation, including regular and routine dialogue between the NCSC and its international partners. This dialogue includes the sharing of our respective technical expertise on the security of telecoms networks and the question of managing the risks from high-risk vendors. There are mechanisms already in place for the NCSC to share this and wider information with DCMS.

We also agree with noble Lords that the Government should consider the policies of our Five Eyes partners when developing our own security policies, and we do that. However, although we take the position of our Five Eyes partners into consideration, our international interests are not limited to the Five Eyes. That is why the approach we have taken in the Bill provides the flexibility for the Secretary of State to take into consideration a variety of relevant information, which includes but is not limited to assessments of our international partners’ policies. I reassure noble Lords that the Bill enables the Secretary of State to consider a decision by a Five Eyes partner—or, indeed, by any other international partner—to ban a vendor on security grounds.

Clause 16 of the Bill sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors the Secretary of State might take into account when she is considering issuing a designation notice. This illustrates the kinds of factors that the Government will proactively be considering on an ongoing basis as part of our work. The Government’s approach to national security needs to remain flexible and adaptable to future challenges. Every country’s approach to national security will be different; security measures taken in one particular country might not always be appropriate in another, for example due to differences in the composition of their telecoms networks or services.

The Government’s consideration of specific countries’ policies when developing their own national security policy should not therefore be mandated or set out in such a restrictive way in primary legislation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister, and perhaps I am pre-empting what he is about to say, but it seems that, although he has clearly said the answer that I predicted—“not necessary”—the fact that this amendment was brought shows that it is not clear from this legislation that that is what the Minister will be doing. At the very least, whether this gets voted through or not, there is a conversation to be had when this comes back on Report that takes into consideration whether it just limits itself to Five Eyes or goes broader. Will the Minister undertake to think about those things as well, and perhaps comment on that?

[A noble Lord]

The noble Lord means Third Reading.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes, we are of course on Report; it has been a while since we were in Committee. Yes, the noble Lord is right: we do not feel that this amendment is necessary. I hope that I am setting out how the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to do what I think noble Lords want to do, not least, as I was just explaining, in Clause 16 and the non-exhaustive list of factors referred to there. Our objection is to setting out the Five Eyes partnership specifically and restrictively when there may be other countries and allies we speak to where she will also rightly want to take that into account. It is important that the Government have the freedom to determine their own national security policies so that they remain flexible and can respond rapidly to changing threats and challenges to our telecoms networks. The Government also need to be able to determine exactly how and when they engage with their Five Eyes partners and consider their actions when developing our policies.

Noble Lords are absolutely right to speak of the importance of the Five Eyes alliance; for more than 60 years it has been doing extremely valuable work for the people of this country and, indeed, for the other partner nations in it. But the Five Eyes alliance was not created through legislation and its importance has not relied on it being set out in statute either. In fact, it would be highly unusual to refer to such an alliance in legislation and we feel that this Bill is not the right place to create such an important national security precedent. That is why we are resisting it.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, suggested that if we had had such a provision it might have saved some time and effort in the past, in particular with reference to Huawei. The Government have always considered Huawei to pose a relatively high risk to the UK’s telecoms networks compared with other vendors. There has been a risk mitigation strategy in place since Huawei first began to supply equipment to the UK’s public telecoms providers. As he knows, in July last year, following advice from the NCSC, the National Security Council considered the impact of US sanctions in relation to Huawei and considered that further action was needed in relation to Huawei as the new US restrictions made oversight of Huawei products significantly more challenging and potentially impossible. That is an illustration of how the UK already regularly reviews security advice and requirements in response to international considerations and what other Governments are doing.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also asked about Hikvision. The UK is aware of reporting that has suggested links between Hikvision and human rights violations in Xinjiang. As he knows, the Government have spoken up at international organisations to condemn the ongoing situation in Xinjiang. In January, my right honourable friend the former Foreign Secretary announced a number of measures to help ensure that UK businesses and the public sector are not complicit in human rights violations or abuses there. Decisions on excluding suppliers would be made on a case-by-case basis by central government contracting authorities when undertaking procurements in line with the relevant regulations.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra raised China more broadly, and indeed the UK wants a mature, positive relationship with China based on mutual respect and trust. There is considerable scope for constructive engagement and co-operation but, as we strive for that positive relationship, we will not sacrifice either our values or our security. China is now a leading member of the world community; its size, economic power and global influence make it a vital partner in tackling the biggest global challenges, but it has always been the case that where we have concerns, we raise them, and where we need to intervene, we will.

In conclusion, I want to return to where I started these remarks. The Government view national security as their number one priority, as any responsible Government would. This debate has highlighted that there is broad agreement on the need for robust, strategic consideration of those issues. So, although I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendments in this group, I warmly welcome the intent behind them. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords sufficiently that we understand their concerns, and that they will be content not to press these amendments.

19:00

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Speaking first to Amendment 10, the Minister gave some reassurance to the House in respect of a strategy. He and I mentioned numerous strategies and I think all of us hope that somewhere along the line they are co-ordinated; otherwise, we will end up with a strategy to deal with a strategy, which is not a good place for anyone to be. I shall leave the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to deal with Amendment 11. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 10.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

Amendment 11

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

11: After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of telecommunications companies based in foreign countries
(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) After section 105Z29 insert—“105Z30 Review of telecommunications companies based in foreign countriesWhere a Five Eyes partner bans the operation of a vendor of goods or services to public telecommunications providers in its country on security grounds, the Secretary of State must— (a) review the United Kingdom’s security arrangements with that company, and(b) decide whether to issue a designated vendor direction or take similar action with regard to the United Kingdom’s arrangements with that company.””

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister was characteristically courteous. I am grateful to him, but I wish to test the opinion of the House.

19:01

Division 3

Ayes: 172

---

Labour: 88
Liberal Democrat: 60
Crossbench: 15
Independent: 6
Green Party: 2
Conservative: 1

Noes: 156

---

Conservative: 146
Independent: 4
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Crossbench: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Iran

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:18

Asked by

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy towards Iran; and what engagement they have had with the government of that country on (1) the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and (2) the detention of dual nationals.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as our proceedings on the Bill have already concluded, this Question for Short Debate becomes our last business. As a result, Back-Bench and Opposition speakers may take a little longer than as set out in today’s list and speak for up to six minutes, should they wish.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to discuss the British national hostages in Iran and refer briefly to the JCPOA. I had the privilege of meeting Richard, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s husband, and Gabriella, their daughter. The length of her imprisonment is a shocking and heartbreaking story, made even worse by the fact that her appeal was turned down just two or three days ago. But of course, it is not just Nazanin but other British nationals who are in arbitrary detention in Iran. As far as I know, four British nationals remain in this detention: Nazanin-Zaghari Ratcliffe, Anoosheh Ashoori, Morad Tahbaz and Mehran Raoof. There may be others. My first question is: why do the Government insist on keeping the names and numbers confidential? After all, the Iranians know perfectly well who they are holding in detention or some form of custody. So, what is the benefit of our not knowing how many there are altogether? The four I have mentioned may not be the total.

My second criticism of the Government is that there seems to be no strategy for the British prisoners there. They are being held as hostages. Do we have a certainty of getting them out or is the Foreign Office simply sitting there, saying, “Well, let us hope something turns up?” I do not think that would be good enough. These are heartbreaking stories of people innocent of the crimes of which they have been accused, held in detention or, in Nazanin’s case, long detention—she is now under house arrest. It is simply unacceptable that British citizens should be held in this position.

Surely, we should consider punishing the perpetrators. We talk about the Magnitsky sanctions; why do we not threaten to use them on those people in Iran who are holding our people in detention in that way? In addition, we need an independent investigation of the torture allegations. It is fairly clear that prisoners have been held in a situation where they have suffered torture. An independent investigation of that would surely help.

There is the vexed question of the £400 million we owe the Iranians. Having looked at the previous comments made by Ministers, the Government’s answer has been that they will investigate the full range of options, but the Government say they do not link the two—the prisoners and the £400 million. Surely, if we have said to the Iranians that we accept that we owe them the £400 million, I cannot see what is to be gained by then saying we will investigate the full range of options. It seems to me that if we owe them money, the least we should do is negotiate that money against the release of those prisoners. That seems clear, and I think the Iranians—I do not want to speak for them—will feel that they were promised the money and they have not got it. We should keep the promise and do it.

My next question is: are these people hostages in the eyes of the Government? The Minister talked in June about an early release of all hostages in Iran. Do we therefore recognise that they are hostages? Sometimes, Ministers tend to say something else and not to refer to them as hostages.

I understand other countries have got their prisoners out: Australia, Germany, Canada and the United States. I wonder if the Minister could throw some light on how that happened. How was it that other countries managed to get their prisoners out while we failed? Did we try hard enough? Is there something the other countries did that we did not do? The Minister should tell us.

Then, there is the issue of diplomatic protection, which was offered to Nazanin a year or two ago. What happens with this diplomatic protection? Is it in fact still there? Are we using it with full force? Have we extended that protection to the other British nationals I mentioned and, if not, why not? Are the Government saying it was just a token gesture and there is no benefit to it? If there is a benefit to it, we should make full use of the fact that we have given Nazanin diplomatic status, and act accordingly.

My next and related point is this. At Nazanin’s court hearing—not the recent one—there was no United Kingdom presence. The Government will argue they were not allowed in. The Germans sent their consular official to a trial of a German national. The official was not allowed in but he or she did manage to have a conversation with the judge, so there was something to be gained by doing that. I cannot understand why we are so reluctant to use our diplomatic presence in Iran to aid and bring comfort to the people we are talking about. I know that at one point Nazanin was not even visited by British consular officials and when her daughter sent a gift, it was brought over by a driver. The consular officials did not even take it over to give it personally. It seems that we are not doing very much; we could be doing a great deal more than we seem to have done.

Furthermore, negotiations on the JCPOA are now taking place or, at least, I think that, with the change of regime in Tehran, there is a pause. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that pause will soon be over. We should certainly press to ensure that Iran’s policy of taking hostages should be on the table as part of negotiations on the JCPOA. We are losing an opportunity, and we should use it, and the £400 million, as a way to put some pressure on the Iranians.

If we are talking about restoring the JCPOA—I understand that the Government are fully committed to doing that and to undoing the damage done under the Trump regime—but we cannot get the full JCPOA, can we at least argue for an interim arrangement where some of the benefits of the JCPOA will be on the table, in return for which there could be certain concessions from the Iranians? Rather than leave it as all or nothing on the JCPOA, it would be good if we could have a backstop position and seek an interim arrangement.

The Minister may not want to talk about that, because he may not wish to admit that the JCPOA may not work. Of course, we all fervently hope that it will and we can resume the position we had before President Trump got involved so mistakenly, but it would be nice to feel that we had a back-up position. In any case, it should surely be our policy to encourage some form of regional dialogue. Could we use our influence along with EU countries to try to achieve that?

Furthermore, would it not be possible for us to start engaging with Iran on both refugees from Afghanistan and the problem of drugs? We might well find some sympathy and the chance to have a proper, big conversation with the Iranian authorities, despite there being a new regime there, given that it is estimated—the Minister may correct this—that 700,000 refugees from Afghanistan have gone to Iran. More than a million have gone to Pakistan. That is quite a responsibility for the Iranians, and surely it would be worth our while talking to them about that. We are talking about nearly 2 million people who have gone to Pakistan and Iran altogether, so there is a real issue there on which we should engage with the Iranians. Then there is the question of drugs—the perennial problem of dangerous drugs being cultivated and produced in Afghanistan and then exported. The Iranian authorities might well have a joint interest with us in stemming that trade.

Then there is the question of international co-ordination. How much are we working with other countries to try to deal with the hostages? I think we joined the Canadian initiative against arbitrary detention in February, and James Cleverly said:

“We continue to work with G7 partners to enhance mechanisms to uphold international law, tackle human rights abuses and stand up for our shared values.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/21; col. 234.]


My question is: how much effort are we putting into that international co-ordination? We would surely have a stronger hand to play if we worked closely with other countries, some of which also have hostages in Iran.

The danger for Nazanin, who is one of the four I mentioned who, I understand, are in house detention but not in prison, is that she might now be returned to prison. That will be a terrible thing to happen after all the years she has spent there but, given that her appeal has been refused, the prospects are not wonderful. How will the Government respond to the possibility that she might have to return to prison? The Government have been a bit coy on this issue in previous debates. “Coy” is rather a bland word; the Government have not been very forthcoming. Can they be more forthcoming? We need a far more robust approach—robust enough to put pressure on the Iranians—and we need to work with other countries to see whether we can bring out these unfortunate victims of Iranian injustice and give them the right to return to their homes.

19:30

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of Members’ interests. I am the unpaid chairman of the British Iranian Chamber of Commerce. I join the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in condemning the cruel treatment of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe; the extension of her sentence without even a court hearing was an absolute disgrace. I have seen through my work as a trade envoy that the Government are making huge efforts to get Nazanin released. I have been in many meetings where the subject has been put very forcefully to Iranian Ministers.

It is also shameful that Iran should attempt—or appears to be attempting—to link the fate of a young, innocent woman to the tank money owed to Iran by the UK. The two should never be linked, although I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that many of us are puzzled by the Government’s failure to pay the debt and meet Iran’s claim, which, after all, has been upheld by the UK courts. If it is US sanctions that are preventing the UK Government resolving this issue, that would in itself be bizarre. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us a specific reason why this money cannot be paid.

I will concentrate mainly on the JCPOA and the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. It would be a mistake to think of the JCPOA only as something helpful to Iran. It is immensely important to the rest of the world. That is why it would be a mistake to link the efforts to get Nazanin and others home to their families with any negotiations over the JCPOA. That agreement would have prevented Iran getting a nuclear weapon for 15 years. It was a good agreement and, I believe, extremely important.

The best way of ensuring that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon is for the United States to return to the agreement that it broke. Despite the confirmation from the International Atomic Energy Agency on 10 or 11 occasions that Iran was complying with the agreement, it was Donald Trump who, unilaterally and for no good reason, tore up the agreement and imposed punitive sanctions on Iran. This hit ordinary people extremely heavily and had the effect of undermining the political standing of the moderate President Rouhani, who favours engagement with the West. It confirmed the suspicions and accusations of hardliners in Tehran that the US and the West could not be trusted.

Those, like Mr Netanyahu, who claimed that President Rouhani was just some cynical PR front figure for hardliners ought to contemplate what is now happening in Tehran, where steps are being taken in the Iranian Parliament to put the former President on trial for having negotiated an agreement that has had such bad effects on Iran and Iran’s economy. The only way forward is for the US to rejoin the JCPOA and for Iran to return to the enrichment and centrifuge limits set in the agreement. Iran has indicated that all the recent steps it has taken to boost its enrichment and number of centrifuges are reversible—in other words, that it is establishing a negotiating position. To attempt new, additional demands on Iran, such as to agree a follow-up agreement on regional issues, would be totally counterproductive. Iran has not returned to the negotiating table. We need to get Iran back to that table but it will not return until the additional sanctions imposed by Trump have been removed.

I also strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said about trying to find common ground with Iran—on areas where we have a mutual interest. Indeed, Afghanistan is one such area; the Taliban are very strong enemies of Iran. Before this situation, Iran had already taken 4 million refugees and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, has probably had another 700,000 in the last few weeks. Fighting ISIS was another area of common ground where there was initially some co-operation, but it eventually broke down. Although there had been a certain amount of mutual understanding, it was at a distance.

Narcotics are another common interest. We used to have a Metropolitan Police presence in Afghanistan. I agree that the more we find common ground, the more we might find that we make progress on other issues, such as the dual citizens who are being held so wrongly.

As I said, I have been involved in some talks with Iranian Ministers. I have worked with the families of some of the other people—not of Nazanin herself—who have been in similar situations. I know that the Government are trying extremely hard on this. Let us keep that going, but we ought also to make it a major objective to get Iran back to the negotiating table on the JCPOA. Without the JCPOA, the Middle East is an even more dangerous place.

19:35

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, with his considerable experience on this issue. I agree with his central argument on the benefit of returning to the discussions. It was depressing to read that the latest effort by the European Union envoy in meeting Iranian officials had a negative response on the return to discussions in Vienna. We hope very much that this stalling will not continue.

I shall return to that in a moment but, first, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his tireless work on this issue. I reread the Questions that he has asked and his contributions to debates in the House on this topic. The questions that he posed to the Minister are very valid, especially regarding the definitions of hostages and of torture. It is now incumbent on the Government to be clear as to whether they consider that international obligations on these key areas are now being breached by the Iranian officials.

After a number of years on the Front Bench, my noble friend Lady Northover has stood back as the Liberal Democrats spokesperson. I put on record my admiration for how she carried out her role. It is very relevant to refer to her work in this debate; I checked the Official Report and she has raised the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in this House on 20 occasions through debates and Questions. Most recently, on 7 June, following a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, her supplementary question was very prescient as she asked about UK officials attending court cases and hearings. The Minister replied that

“we continue making the case to attend any hearings that we can”.—[Official Report, 07/6/21; col. 1190.]

However, the most depressing news about this, of course, was that the so-called appeal would not meet the international norms of good legal practice in fair and open appeal. It was held in secret, without any possibility of observation. Can the Minister confirm what representations the UK has made to Iranian officials during this process, which has now led to the intolerable position referred to—of Nazanin not knowing whether she will arbitrarily returned to prison?

With regard to the valid question on torture, the Islamic Republic of Iran has ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It is not a far stretch to suggest that Iran’s conduct in this case is in clear breach of this international convention as well as of the optional protocol and the ICCPR that Iran has signed up to. What are the Government doing? The Foreign Secretary said in her statement:

“We are doing all we can to help Nazanin get home ... and I will continue to press Iran.”


It is now incumbent on the Government to state exactly what they are doing and what levers they are seeking to pull. The Iranians will know that she is the fourth Foreign Secretary to have made similar comments about this. What will be different this time?

Turning to the wider issue of the JCPOA, I had the privilege of serving on the International Relations Committee. Its report on nuclear non-proliferation and the hearings we had specifically on the JCPOA were very clear that the UK Government were correct not to follow the path of the United States but to maintain their position and to work much more closely with the E3 within Europe and the other signatories to seek a way forward for the United States to recognise its responsibilities as a signatory; and also for Iran to be open and allow much greater access, the lack of which has frustrated international inspectors in recent months. In that regard, can the Minister outline the position of the Government regarding the lack of access on the inspection of certain facilities? I understand that the Iranians are using the drone attack as a pretext for saying that there was a breach of security and damage, and for preventing the continuation of international inspections. Do the Government agree with that position, and how are we seeking to persuade the Iranians to open up access?

As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, indicated, this is a regional issue as well. There have been some welcome signs of dialogue between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Iran in recent months, looking at opening consular access and with slow but hopefully positive work towards full diplomatic relations being restored. There are a couple of areas still outstanding, which I should like the Minister to refer to. One was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Lamont. How are the Government treating the debt issue? Do they believe that this is completely separate from the wider negotiations, or have they or the Iranians tabled this issue as part of the wider discussions with the UK and our partners on JCPOA? What is the Government’s understanding of the latest position of the United States regarding compatibility? The new US Secretary of State has made his public comments known. Do the Government agree with Antony Blinken on what Iran needs to do for restoration, or do we have a separate position? All these issues are valid and timely, and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for raising them.

19:42

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I served on the International Relations and Defence Committee of your Lordships’ House. As the noble Lord has said, we came to the very clear conclusion that it was in Britain’s interest to sustain the JCPOA and t do everything possible to reverse the action taken by the Trump Administration. That was our clear position, and I think it was the right one.

Successive British Governments, as far back as when Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary, and of different parties, including the coalition, took the view that active diplomacy backed up by economic sanctions was the best way to head off the risk of Iran acquiring fissile material capable of arming a nuclear weapon. Those Governments sustained that policy even in the face of great pressure from the Trump Administration to renege on the JCPOA which had been agreed with Iran in 2015. I believe they were right to do so and are right now to continue doing so, in concert with the Biden Administration’s efforts to revive the JCPOA and to bring Iran back into conformity with its provisions.

Why so? Because alternative courses of action, including that chosen by President Trump of “maximum pressure,” showed no signs whatever of working and contained massive risks to the whole international community: the risk of an Iran either with nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery, or so close to that as to represent a credible threat to obtain them; a potential, indeed probable, nuclear arms race in a very volatile region; irreparable damage to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a cornerstone of international peace of security; and the possibility of another armed conflict in a region which has already seen too many of them. Frankly, that is quite a list of risks.

Of course, it takes two to tango in this attempt to revive the JCPOA. The hiatus in the Vienna talks following the Iranian presidential election leaves the diplomatic route hanging by a thread, exemplified by the visit to Tehran last week of the co-ordinator of the E3’s position. But the risks from the diplomatic route collapsing makes going the last mile worthwhile—indeed, necessary, I suggest—and I strongly support the Government’s policy of doing just that.

I also share the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Lamont, that we ought discreetly to look for ways in which our interests and those of Iran overlap, whether it be the future of Afghanistan, drugs or the handling of flows of refugees. I do hope that the Government will find some way of opening up channels of discussion—not linking it with any other issue but simply reflecting the fact that there is an overlap in our fundamental interests in these matters. Iran suffers as much as any country from the flow of drugs, suffers hugely from the flow of refugees, and will be a victim of any terrorist outbreaks based either on the activities of ISIS in Afghanistan or on the Taliban themselves—because they will be directed against Iran’s co-religionists, the Hazara.

In the long run, the best solution to tensions in the Gulf region remains agreement by all sides to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, to cease meddling in each other’s internal affairs, and to work together on economic co-operation, of which there could be a massive amount. But that will be a work of years, not of weeks or months. I just hope that we will not lose sight of it, because it is the only viable way forward in a region where we have considerable political, security and commercial interests. Until we can get to that position, we will be continually faced by these crises.

As to the cruel and unjustified treatment of British-Iranian dual nationals, exemplified by the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, no effort to bring that to an end should be spared by the Government. However, I have to say that linking it in any way to the nuclear issue is only too likely to prove counterproductive and unsuccessful.

19:48

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for initiating this important and timely debate, and I join other noble Lords who paid tribute to him for his tireless work on this and other humanitarian issues. He is an admirable member of this House. I agree with everything said so far, I think, and it is a privilege and a challenge to follow such thoughtful and informed speeches. I will do my best.

Only three days ago, an Iranian court apparently upheld Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s sentence of another year in prison, prolonging her cruel and unjustified detention that began in 2016. The Government say they are doing all they can to get her home, but Iran has made it clear that her freedom and that of the other dual nationals has a price: the repayment of the debt owed since Iran bought tanks that were not delivered after the Islamic Revolution in 1979. On 7 June, in an Oral Question referring to Nazanin’s case, my noble friend Lord Dubs asked about the money owed by the UK. The Minister, in his Answer, said:

“On the long-standing debt, we continue to explore options to resolve this case, but I do not want to go into details here.”—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. 1188.]


I will not ask him to go into details of plans, and in fact I will offer him a plan at some point in this speech.

On this issue, I agree with my honourable friend Tulip Siddiq, the Ratcliffe family’s MP. She said:

“It’s time for the UK government to pay the debt we owe to Iran, stand up to their despicable hostage-taking and finally get Nazanin home.”


In preparation for this debate, I asked my colleagues in the European Leadership Network—particularly a young man called Sahil Shah, who helped me enormously—who have been working since 2018 to preserve the JCPOA across Europe, Asia and the United States, to come up with a plan. I have a proposal. The speakers thus far have asked enough questions of the Minister; I will not ask him any questions, but will instead put to him a proposal that, if it can be made to work, may help both to secure Nazanin’s release and to unlock the stalemate of the JCPOA talks—without linking them together.

This week, the Iranian Foreign Minister explained to lawmakers in Tehran their policy of “action for action”. He said that the US must show good will and make a serious move before Iran returns to nuclear talks. Since Trump unilaterally abrogated the JCPOA, Europe, including the UK, has strongly opposed US secondary sanctions imposed under its “maximum pressure” campaign and, to keep the deal alive, has offered multi-sector economic engagement. However, because of fear of US sanctions, which are all-pervasive, it has failed to deliver any economic engagement—including, importantly, in the humanitarian sector. As a matter of fact—or a matter of law, I should say—sanctions on humanitarian trade are against both US domestic and international law. Contrary to expectations, the Biden Administration have essentially kept to this Trumpian strategy.

The need for increased Covid aid to Iran is dire. The Delta variant hit Iran hard: a recent study by BBC Persian found 200,000 excess deaths there, and many believe that to be a gross underestimate. Neither America nor Europe will ever be secure from the virus until the world, including Iran, is secure. We already have enough petri dishes allowing the virus to run riot and develop variants. We should be picking them off where we can; Iran is one that we can pick off. It is in our interests. We should ask the US to allow Iran to use its foreign exchange reserves, which are held in key countries, to aid its pandemic response. Doing so would ease humanitarian trade during a time when the pandemic has caused immense human suffering in a population already toiling under severe economic hardship from years of sanctions. The death toll in Iran is appalling.

The IMF estimates that, because of the maximum pressure sanctions, Iran has access to only around 10% of its total foreign reserves. Iran negotiated with South Korea, Japan, Germany and Iraq—countries where it maintains foreign reserves, but also where the US maintains strong bilateral relationships and exercises its muscle. Trump successfully discouraged all four from accommodating Iran, both directly and indirectly. The Biden Administration are now doing the same. I remind noble Lords that this all should be in contravention of US domestic and international law.

Instead—this is the plan—Biden could go beyond the escrow structure that has been used to facilitate the use of Iranian oil revenues for humanitarian trade.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I remind the noble Lord of the six-minute limit.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

Thank you. I have just a few sentences left, that is all.

On the condition that the reserves will not be transferred outside of the countries in which they are held, the US could recognise the authority of these four independent Governments to determine the scope of acceptable bilateral humanitarian trade with Iran. This approach could extend to the United Kingdom; we could use what we owe Iran to pay for the purchase of vaccines and other necessary medical supplies through INSTEX, which we set up with France and Germany but through which we have been unable to mobilise any trade. I commend this plan to the Minister and the Government.

19:55

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I congratulate him on the plan that he set out, which I am sure the Government will consider.

I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on securing this important debate. He is completely right to describe the kidnapping and plight of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe as heart-breaking; he is also completely right to say that the Government should examine whether Magnitsky sanctions could be used against the perpetrators. Our new Foreign Secretary was right to adopt a resolute and determined approach to securing the release of detained British citizens; she was also right to make this a high priority as soon as she was appointed.

We must be absolutely clear about the nature of this regime. This is not a democracy run by reasonable people with whom negotiation bears fruit. It is a brutal regime that executes its opponents, hangs gay men from cranes, denies women basic rights and even, as we have heard, kidnaps British citizens for use as political pawns. In the past few months, it has killed a British national and a British serviceperson in its attacks on ships in international waters. It equipped Hamas terrorists with the missiles that they rained down on civilians in Israel earlier this year, causing the terrible conflict that we saw in May. It has prolonged the brutal civil war in Syria and attacked allied forces in Iraq, while its support for Hezbollah terrorists led to last week’s carnage in Beirut and threatens another civil war.

I never accepted that relaxing sanctions on Iran would encourage the regime to behave more responsibly and reasonably, given that, under the previous sanctions regime, with its economy on its knees, the regime spent huge funds on sponsoring and supporting terrorism. It was always clear that, with sanctions relaxed and more funds at its disposal, the regime would increase the funds provided to terrorists such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Iran has clearly broken the promises made in 2015. Experts estimate that it is now just two or three months away from acquiring enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. It promised not to enrich uranium above 3.67% or stockpile enriched uranium higher than 3.67% for at least 15 years. However, according to the IAEA report in May, it had 62.8 kilograms of enriched uranium at 20%. At the start of September, the IAEA estimated that it had 84.3 kilograms of 20%-enriched uranium, plus an additional 10 kilograms of nearly 60%-enriched uranium. Last weekend, Mohammad Eslami, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, announced that Iran had more than 120 kilograms of 20%-enriched uranium.

None of these actions—installing advanced centrifuges and obstructing IAEA inspectors, both before the US Administration withdrew from the JCPOA, while enriching uranium to 60% and producing uranium metal, which is a significant component of nuclear weapons—have any credible civilian applications. This is why Israel’s new Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, said this last week:

“The Iranian nuclear program is at its most advanced point ever … the Iranians are playing for time, and the centrifuges are spinning.”


Professor Eyal Zisser said:

“The only thing separating Iran from a nuclear weapon is a political decision from its leaders … Iran has enriched enough uranium to make a bomb, and even if it hasn’t done so yet and hasn’t developed the ability to launch one on a ballistic missile, this is still just a technical matter requiring just a few weeks of effort”.


Can the Minister tell us what steps will be taken to build a concerted multilateral push against Iran to address the nuclear issue and its destabilisation of the rest of the region? Is it now time to refer back to the UN Security Council and to consider the snap-back of prior sanctions, which were clearly pivotal in bringing Iran to the negotiating table in the first place? Will the Government ensure that any new deal must include Iran committing to unfettered IAEA access to the full extent of its declared—and undeclared—nuclear facilities?

Finally, given Iran’s use of its funding to sponsor terrorism across the region, what assessment have the Government made of the case for banning Hamas in its entirety? This is a genocidal terrorist organisation opposed to any peace agreement in the Middle East. It wants to wipe Israel off the map and murder the Jews who live there. I believe that it should be banned in its entirety in the UK to prevent it raising funds in this country.

20:01

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, this short debate is a helpful opportunity to attempt to offer an insight into the complex world of Iran. Some are of the view that modern-day Iran, which is now pivoting towards the East, is of the West’s making. The corrupt leadership in Iran does not represent its people, who should not be punished with policy failures and requiring long-term planning.

At the core of this evening’s short debate is the strategy to resolve the JCPOA. What is the Government’s strategy to bring this all to an end? What is made of Iran’s increasing implied threat of going military on its nuclear programme unless the world does this or the other? Is the regime trusted in negotiating in good faith?

Although the Revolutionary Guard is loyal to the regime, in practical terms the regime is more reliant on the Revolutionary Guard than the Revolutionary Guard is on the leadership, who consequently have become more assertive. Iran is in reality a de facto military Government, with all key positions controlled by commanders. They are in full control of the running of the economy of the country. The Iranian people, the West and the world are hostage. How long is the West going to allow this behaviour to continue?

Worryingly, Iran will more increasingly negotiate through hostage diplomacy; China has provided evidence just recently that it can be turned to an advantage. This is a dangerous turn of events, with the potential to get out of hand globally. A crucial question is: how will the Government respond if Iran, or any other state, continues to follow a policy of hostage-taking to achieve its goals?

I fear that the raising of dual citizens might play more into the hands of Tehran as there is an association with the return of money that is legally due for return. While the regime believes that it has right on its side, it will do nothing. I sincerely hope that I am proved wrong. The UK not returning the tank money plays into the hands of the leadership as it is an easy message to explain that it is the UK that is not abiding by the rule of law.

There still remains the recognition by Iran of Israel. It should not be forgotten that Israel also owes money from the days of the Shah, giving credence to an international coalition against it. Some are of the singular view that there is only one state that has the means to bring about resolution to the situation in Iran and the region: Israel.

In today’s climate, we should forget regional negotiations with the US at the table. We are entering a cold-war phase, with Iran having cut a 25-year deal to give first rights to Russia and China on construction, intelligence and military matters. Where does this leave us? There is, however, one core fundamental: the language of power is all that is understood. When faced with credible condemnation pressure, the leadership buckles. Will the Minister set out before the House where the Government perceive the regime’s weak points are so that we can all join in to make for a better world with Iran at the table?

20:05

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, as if the continued detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is not shocking enough, I want to draw attention also to the harassment, death threats, arrests and detention being suffered by the many dual nationals who work for the BBC Persian Service, based both in Iran and in London. I am hoping that the Minister can update the House this evening on what steps the Government can take to up the ante on their representations to the Iranian Government, because the problem simply has not eased up. It has escalated over the past three years, with many family members of BBC employees also now subject to interrogation and harassment.

Since 2017, the Iranian Government have pursued criminal investigations into BBC Persian staff, alleging that their work constitutes a crime against Iran’s national security. Some 152 named individuals, most of them dual nationals, are the subjects of an injunction to freeze their assets, preventing them buying or inheriting property in Iran. Recent testimonies from staff show that interrogation techniques have become more frightening and aggressive towards elderly parents, siblings and other family members. Some staff have been threatened with kidnapping. Female staff in London are being particularly targeted with online attacks, fake stories about rape and sexual harassment by male colleagues at the BBC, and fake pornographic pictures posted on social media. Staff have been unable to return to or visit Iran to see sick or dying elderly relatives, for fear of detention or worse.

The objective of the Iranian Government appears to be to coerce people to stop working for the BBC, and to undermine the independence and quality of the World Service journalism. Repeated reports, resolutions and appeals to and from the United Nations have got nowhere: indeed, some brave BBC Persian journalists who have provided testimony have been further victimised.

I am aware that the FCDO has raised concerns in bilateral discussions with Iran, and has pledged to continue to do so, but this just does not seem to be enough or achieve any change. The injunction remains in place; BBC Persian staff and their families continue to have their rights infringed, and journalists continue to be the subject of systematic and sustained attacks.

I really want to hear something more and new from the Minister on what our Government can and will do to defend the independence of the BBC Persian service and, most importantly, the lives, safety and welfare of the people who work for it, and their families.

20:08

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, but it has often seemed as if there have been two separate, entirely different countries that were being discussed. One showed Iran as a potential partner for peace, a potential future trading ally that has been wronged by the West and President Trump, and let down by the UK. The other, which I fear is closer to reality, is a country described in contributions by the noble Lords, Lord Austin and Lord Waverley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins: it is run by a military dictatorship that remains the biggest exporter of Islamist terror in the world and reaches into our own country in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, just set out and provides a real and credible threat to its neighbours in the region and, in the future, to our way of life.

I accept and agree with the arguments made by a number of erudite and experienced noble Lords for the resumption of the JCPOA. If the agreement is resumed, it must be effective. I would like to see it going wider than the nuclear parameters it has been set, but I fear that is unrealistic. Let us be under no illusion, however, that Iran is now breaking the agreement, forging forward towards being a nuclear power. I hope the Minister will reaffirm that the UK understands that there is no scenario in which this can be accepted and allowed to carry on.

When we talk about the inducements necessary to bring Iran back to the table, let us be clear that there is no scenario in which Iran can be allowed to become a nuclear power in the region. The G7 recently made that clear, as did the United States in its bilateral engagement with Israel a couple of weeks ago. The UK also needs to be clear that no one will allow this threshold to be reached. I hope that will be part of restoring a level of deterrence that can bring Iran back to the table effectively.

Surely deterring Iran from becoming a nuclear threat in the region and to the world and from continuing its disgraceful role as an exporter of Islamist terror is a wider issue than this sanctions/enrichment trade-off. It requires a more significant reappraisal of the West’s approach to its alliances, foreign policy and outlook in the world.

Capability is of course an issue, but the resolve to act is surely just as important. In recent years, Iran has shown what it can do with a fraction of the capability of our allies in the West. If we do not have the resolve to face down acts of aggression or the foresight to understand the scale of the threat to our liberal democracies and the rule of law in this environment, the threat Iran can pose with very little capability can spread. Look at Yemen. With a low level of resource, the Iranians have empowered an Islamist proxy to prolong a conflict that has not only caused untold suffering for Yemenis but weakened essential ties between the coalition formed against the Houthi Islamist terror group and against the Islamist expansionist terror which Iran has represented and championed since 1979.

The same currents applied in Lebanon and in Syria before that. Iran and Russia have exploited a relative lack of resolve and strategic common sense from the West, resulting in appalling misery for millions of Syrians, a refugee crisis that is further impacting on the West and the emboldening of those who would undermine our way of life.

This matters even more because of the emergence of China, which will in years ahead be able to bring world-class military capability and might to challenge any weakness in the West’s resolve. Basic hostility to our world view, plus military capability, plus ongoing weakness from the West to deter threats could pose an existential challenge to our way of life in the decades ahead. Let us hope that Iran’s acceptance into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is largely symbolic for the moment, but it is a symbol whose importance we must countenance.

The UK has shown its ability to think creatively with the recent strength of the AUKUS alliance. Our challenge should be to apply that scale of ambition, innovative thinking and strength of partnership to the Middle East, to restore that sense of deterrence.

20:15

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I start by paying tribute first to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for bringing the issue of Iran and, in particular, concerns about dual nationals, especially Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, back to the Chamber, and secondly to my noble friend Lady Northover. As my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed pointed out, while she was our foreign affairs spokesperson in the Lords, she raised these issues on 20 occasions.

I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for yet again bringing to the Chamber’s awareness the concerns of nationals in another country—people working as journalists for the BBC Persian service and people working to get the truth out, who are very often the interpreters on whose behalf she is speaking. It is very easy to think that we are focusing on just one or two very narrow issues. Understanding the difficulty of journalists in speaking truth to power and getting a message out in Persian is important. So although slightly beyond the remit of this debate on the JCPOA and dual nationals, those issues are important. Will the Minister say what support the Government are giving to the BBC Persian service?

From these Benches, I support the JCPOA, as did the opening speakers. Later in the debate, slight concerns were expressed, but at the beginning I thought every speaker was going to say almost the same thing: that the JCPOA was a very important agreement. Like my noble friend Lord Purvis, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, I was a member of the International Relations and Defence Committee when it looked at nuclear non-proliferation. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, pointed out, the JCPOA was not good just for Iran. It was good for security and non-proliferation. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Austin, that Iran has breached the agreement. It has, but what signal did the United States under Donald Trump send by pulling out of the JCPOA? As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, pointed out, President Biden does not seem to have deviated very much from the actions of President Trump. Can the Minister tell us what conversations he, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister have had with President Biden or with Blinken about the JCPOA and getting the United States back on board?

The rhetoric of candidate Biden, Senator Biden, when he ran for the presidency and what is happening how may not be as in sync as they might be. Given that the United Kingdom is so keen to have global reach, part of that surely has to be in our negotiations with the United States. If we want the JCPOA to function, the E3 are important, but ensuring that the United States is back at the table is crucial. I very strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that the UK’s position has been about active diplomacy and sanctions. What sort of active diplomacy are the Government pursuing at present, not just to get the US back to the table, but to get Iran back to the table? In particular, what work is the new Foreign Secretary doing to ensure that the rights of dual nationals are being secured? As we have heard, we are now on the fourth Foreign Secretary who has been dealing with Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. When he was Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister’s words were perhaps not always as diplomatic as they might have been. Can we hope that Liz Truss will do a better job?

It is vital that we understand that some of Iran’s actions, not just in uranium enrichment but in human rights and perhaps torture, need to be looked at so that we understand, and we would like the Government to show, that while it is important that we get Iran back to the table, we also should not be afraid to call it out when there are concerns on torture.

My final point picks up on the points from the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Lamont, at the start of this debate. If the UK has a debt of £400 million to Iran and we want to show it that we are serious about our commitments, surely we should look at resolving that debt so that we can say that we have done everything we should and we are now holding it to account to deliver on the JCPOA and on the rights of dual nationals.

20:20

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Dubs for initiating this debate and for consistently raising these issues on a regular basis. I join the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who is retiring from the Front Bench. She has assured me that although she is retiring from the Front Bench she will continue to come to this Chamber and raise these issues. No doubt we will see her in the very near future.

The noble Baroness mentioned the fact that we are now on the fourth Foreign Secretary. However, the Minister has an incredible record of longevity in this Government and I welcome him to his place. He continues to work in support of all noble Lords, particularly in these sorts of cases.

The Government of Iran are clear that they are not prepared to act in accordance with the global rules-based order. The UK and our allies must make it clear that their lawless actions carry costs. The Iranian attack on the merchant vessel earlier this year was a flagrant breach of international law and, when viewed alongside its continued detention of dual nationals, there is an evident need, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, for a strategy with our allies to end this pattern of behaviour.

On the comprehensive plan of action, put simply, the Trump decision to abandon the plan has not worked. In the words of Roger McShane of the Economist, by the end of President Trump’s term, Iran was closer to holding the bomb than at the beginning. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that President Biden is right to open the possibility of reviving the agreement and the UK, as part of the E3, must consider how we can support that process should the opportunity arise in November. I hope the Minister will give us some indication of what he thinks the prospects of that will be.

We must also recognise that without an agreement in place Iran will continue to advance its nuclear development. Given that Tehran is now hampering inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, there can be no ignoring the fact that the opportunity for diplomatic agreement may not always exist.

On the debt issue, I agree with my noble friend and other noble Lords that we have to separate this issue. We cannot be complicit in it being used as a bargaining tool. If it is right that we return the money—and the courts have said so—we should hear from the Minister tonight what is hampering that process. I ask him to give us some very clear indication of what is going on.

On dual nationals, the ongoing detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, as well as of Anoosheh Ashoori and others, continues to be a political bargaining chip. Their imprisonment is creating an unimaginable ordeal for them and their families, and it is now obvious that the Government’s approach to securing their release has not worked. The latest developments in Nazanin’s case and her appeal at the weekend are a new setback. I hope that the Minister—and all Ministers in the FCDO—will reflect on her husband Richard’s comments that the Government are now simply engaged in “managed waiting”. The real issue here—the key question asked by my noble friend Lord Dubs—is how we are working with our allies, particularly the European Union, to ensure that we can secure their immediate and unconditional release. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

20:25

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for once again raising the important issue of the situation of those arbitrarily detained in Iran, and the particular cases. I pay tribute to him for doing this consistently. I assure him, and indeed your Lordships’ House, that I remain, both in my capacity as Minister for Human Rights and as a member of the Government, fully committed to ensuring that we use every lever at our disposal to continue lobbying for the release of all the dual nationals in Iran.

The noble Lord asked, quite specifically, why we do not name every single individual in Iran who is subject to that detention. The simple answer is that we are engaging, quite regularly, with various members of the families of those detainees. In certain cases, it is at their request that we have not named parties publicly, but I assure the noble Lord that we continue to raise their cases, albeit at certain times quite discreetly.

I recognise the very insightful contributions by all noble Lords. If there is one natural conclusion I could reach from this debate, it is that I do not think there is anyone, wherever they sit in your Lordships’ House, who disagrees with the general thrust, both on the importance of the JCPOA and the need for Iran to act, do the right thing and release Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and other people the noble Lord named. I will come on to that in a moment or two.

I join the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins, in recognising the vital role, and the strength, of the relationship I had with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I pay tribute to her efforts and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is quite right that we will continue to hear valuable contributions from her. I think it is important to put it on record, that, together with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on a whole raft of issues we have enjoyed not just engaging directly and a real understanding of each other’s position, but, if it is appropriate for me to say so as a Minister of the Government, a sound friendship that helps us unravel some of the issues in a way that is extremely important when it comes to sensitive issues.

I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, to his place and look forward to engaging with him on a raft on issues. Of course, the continued role of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on the Front Bench is vital. Also, since we have talked about longevity in office, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has also sustained his position, certainly during my tenure as Minister of State.

Turning first to the JCPOA deal, the nuclear deal demonstrated between 2015 and 2019 that it did and can deliver results—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who has great insight on these matters. However, what is also clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Austin, reminded us, is that since July 2019 it is Iran that has incrementally stepped away from compliance with the deal. This point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Walney. Since that stepping away, the IAEA has also further confirmed that Iran has continued to produce uranium, metal-enriched up to 20% for the first time and, as we learn, alarmingly, has significantly increased its capacity to produce uranium enriched up to 60%. I hear very clearly the warnings that were sounded by the noble Lords, Lord Austin and Lord Walney, in this respect.

To underscore the severity of Iran’s action, it is unprecedented for a state without a desire to develop nuclear weapons to enrich uranium to 60%, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. Iran has no credible civilian need for such capability, which constitutes a significant step towards developing a nuclear weapon. Iran has chosen irreversibly to upgrade its nuclear capability, and it remains in clear violation of its JCPOA commitments.

I will review the detailed suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, but I say to him and to my noble friend Lord Lamont that Iran has a rich history of culture, engagement and enlightenment. Our battle, our challenge, our dispute, is not with the Iranian people but with the Iranian Government, who are persisting on this particular, most tragic path. Simply put, Iran’s nuclear programme has never been so advanced, and of course it remains deeply concerning. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who speaks with great insight and experience, that it is even more important now for peace and security in the region that Iran return to negotiations. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, my noble friend Lord Lamont and other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, all emphasised that point.

As I have often said, the JCPOA is not perfect but it is the best framework we have to monitor and constrain Iran’s nuclear programme. The United Kingdom has rigorously abided by the terms of the agreement, and let me assure noble Lords that we remain committed to it. Iran stepped away from the negotiations in June; its reason was the election. However, it has not returned. At the UN we have seen not just the United Kingdom, the US, France and Germany but Russia and China adding their support to the need for Iran to return to the negotiations. Rather than return, it has continued advancing its nuclear programme, which is irreversibly reducing the real value of the JCPOA.

The noble Lords, Lord Walney, Lord Austin, and Lord Purvis, and my noble friend Lord Lamont, asked me specifically about the United Kingdom’s position. We align ourselves with the position that the offer on the table from the United States to lift sanctions which are inconsistent with the JCPOA in return for Iran returning to full compliance with its nuclear commitment is both fair and comprehensive, and we are working with our partners to secure that. France, Germany, Russia, China and the US have also, as I said, echoed calls for Iran to cease immediately its reckless behaviour, which is a danger to us all.

We are ready to restart negotiations. If we cannot resume talks and achieve a deal soon, we and our international partners will have to reconsider our approach. Various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Austin, raised the issue of the global human rights sanctions regime. Of course, I cannot speculate, but we are engaging diplomatically as well. One of the first meetings that my right honourable friend the new Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, had during UNGA on 22 September was with the Foreign Minister of Iran. Let me assure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that the Prime Minister has also raised the issues of the JCPOA and dual nationals directly with the President of Iran.

Let me pay tribute to the role played by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in respect of BBC Persia. We fully support BBC Persia, and she is aware of the representations we have made. She asked what more can be done. I will certainly take back this issue and reflect, but she is fully aware of our role as a leading voice on the Media Freedom Coalition. Perhaps there is further work we can scope in that respect, and I would be pleased to discuss further steps that can be taken in that regard.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, raised the issue of representation, of consular support and attending various hearings. Of course, the issue is that Iran does not recognise dual nationals, as he knows, but we have nevertheless been relentless in our pursuit of the release and safe return of British nationals detained or forced to remain in Iran. They include Anoosheh Ashoori, Morad Tahbaz and of course Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who have been separated from their loved ones for far too long. We are engaging directly with the families in certain instances, and both the current and previous Foreign Secretaries have talked directly with Nazanin herself.

Although Iran does not recognise dual nationality and therefore continues to refuse our request for consular access, the UK Government have worked for the immediate return of detained dual British nationals at every opportunity. We have consistently raised the cases I have referred to, and indeed others, at the highest levels of the Iranian Government. Last month during the UN General Assembly, as I said, the Prime Minister discussed these very cases and their release—and with former President Rouhani at a previous UN General Assembly as well—while the Foreign Secretary pressed the issue with Foreign Minister Amir-Abdollahian.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, raised the issue of diplomatic protection. By exercising diplomatic protection in the case of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, we formally raised it to a state-to-state issue and we will take further action where we judge it will help secure her full and permanent release. Of course, what we have seen happen recently is tragic and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary issued a very strong statement on 16 October, condemning Iran’s decision to proceed with its baseless charges against Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Her predecessor also engaged frequently on their cases with the then Foreign Minister Zarif. In Tehran, we are in touch with our ambassador, Simon Shercliff, who continues to raise these cases with Iranian interlocutors.

I take note, of course, of the wider regional issues. My noble friend Lord Lamont mentioned the situation with Afghanistan. In this respect, there has been a glimmer or degree of co-operation with the Iranian authorities on those seeking to leave Afghanistan, particularly those minorities who seek refuge within Iran. But frankly, turning back to the dual nationals, our lobbying continues at every opportunity; it helped secure the temporary release of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe in March 2020 and the removal of her ankle tag in April this year. I assure noble Lords that we will not be satisfied until all these British nationals are returned home.

All noble Lords who contributed raised the issue of the IMS debt. In this respect, it is unhelpful, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, to connect wider bilateral issues with those arbitrarily detained in Iran. It remains in Iran’s gift to do the right thing. In terms of the debt itself, there was an adjournment of the April hearings at the request of Iran’s Ministry of Defence. A final decision on a new date has not been made but we continue, as I said, to work on this issue and explore options. It is a 40 year-old case that we need a resolution on.

I am conscious of our time limit and there are a number of other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, normally reserves questions for the end of his contributions. Most of his contribution, rightly, was made up of specific questions. I will of course write to him on those I have not able to answer.

Let me assure all noble Lords who have participated in this important debate that we continue to press Iran. We will work with our allies and press Iran to return to nuclear negotiations around the JCPOA in Vienna at the earliest opportunity, and to full compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA. The deal on the table, we believe, is balanced. It cannot remain there indefinitely; if we cannot reach agreement soon, we will have to reconsider our approach.

On the issue of detention and torture and Iran’s commitment to the ICT, I totally agree with the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that Iran is a signatory to that convention and needs to ensure that it upholds its obligations to it. We will explore how we can bring further focus to this important issue, including opportunities that arise, for example, within the Human Rights Council. I further and finally assure all noble Lords that the detention and treatment of British nationals in Iran remains, and will remain, a top priority for the new Foreign Secretary, for our Prime Minister and for the Government as a whole. Iran has subjected them to a cruel and inhumane ordeal over the last five years. I assure noble Lords that we will do all we can to continue to ensure and secure their release, so that they can once again be reunited with their families in the UK.

House adjourned at 8.40 pm.