House of Commons
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The “Life Sciences Vision” outlined our bold ambition to bring scientific excellence and the dynamism of industry together to solve the most pressing health challenges. I am delighted to say that since the strategy was published we have already launched a £200 million life sciences investment programme and established the life sciences scale-up taskforce.
Stephen Metcalfe
I welcome the record research and development settlement for my right hon. Friend’s Department that was delivered during the spending review, a good chunk of which will, I hope, support investment in health and life sciences. Does he agree that our world-class life sciences base has been and will be our defence against future pandemics? Will he comment on his Department’s plans to locate more life sciences manufacturing facilities in the UK, so that we are less reliant on a global supply chain?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I fully agree with my hon. Friend that world-class life sciences are vital, and I am pleased to confirm that we have already allocated £354 million in the spending review to strengthen the UK’s life sciences manufacturing base, with particular emphasis on preparing for future pandemics.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
It has been reported that the Prime Minister is minded to split up the Secretary of State’s Department so that he can better deliver on the Department’s priorities. Does the Secretary of State agree on that?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I think it is absolutely vital that the net zero agenda—the climate change action agenda—is situated firmly in a Business Department, and I am delighted to head that Department.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
I have two questions for the Secretary of State. What role can life sciences play in the Advanced Research and Invention Agency? What role can Bolton play in ARIA?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend smuggled a leading question into his first question. He knows that ARIA is a key part of our strategy to become a science superpower, and he and I can discuss the role that Bolton will play in that exciting future.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The “Life Sciences Vision” has dementia as its first mission. The Conservative manifesto committed to doubling research funding in a dementia moonshot, but the Budget ignored it. The UK Dementia Research Institute called this
“a major blow to UK neuroscientists racing to find cures for these devastating diseases”.
Alzheimer’s Research UK said that this
“lets down the nearly one million people in the UK affected by this devastating condition.”
So will the Secretary of State now set out a clear timetable for doubling dementia research funding, as Labour has? Or is the “Life Sciences Vision”, like the R&D road map, the industrial strategy, the innovation strategy, the grand challenges and Northern Powerhouse Rail, all talk and no action?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I completely refute the hon. Lady’s allegation that those things are all words. The innovation strategy is the first of its kind. It has been broadly welcomed across the sector, and she will know that dementia is one of the seven technologies in engineering and biology that we are pursuing in the innovation strategy.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The Government recently announced £380 million for our world-leading offshore wind sector, which is boosting jobs and investment across the UK. My hon. Friend will know that the allocation round 4 opens in December, and we are very much looking forward to the bids in that round.
Ian Levy
The House has often heard me talk about Blyth Valley being at the heart of the green industrial revolution. Catapult, in the Port of Blyth, has tested the largest windmill blades in the world for years. We need to continue to be at the forefront of blade testing, to hold our No. 1 position on the global stage. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and the management team from Catapult to make sure that we continue to lead in the race to a greener future?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I would be delighted to see my hon. Friend and the great people who are working on the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult in Blyth. It is a fantastic development and the people working there will surely allow us to hit the 40 GW target for offshore wind in 2030.
Lia Nici
As the Secretary of State knows, Great Grimsby is the UK’s largest centre for offshore wind operations and maintenance. The £160 million announcement for floating offshore wind was very welcome. Does he believe that the time is right to increase our ambitions for that power supply to above 1 GW, which would increase investors’ confidence?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend, who I accompanied in her constituency shortly after her stunning victory in 2019. She will know that I and the Department are fully committed to ensuring that we have increased ambitions. We are always looking to increase our ambitions.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I welcome what the Secretary of State says about wind power—we are proud in Cumbria to be at the heart of offshore wind—but does that not contrast negatively with the Government still sitting on the fence about commissioning a new coalmine in west Cumbria? Given the incredibly disappointing outcome on coal from COP26, is this not a moment for the UK Government to take a lead and say that the coalmine will not open?
Kwasi Kwarteng
First, the hon. Gentleman will understand that the coalmine is a matter of an independent planning decision. Secondly, I completely deny his assertion that somehow COP26 was a failure. It was not. It was a great success, thanks to the COP26 President, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). Huge commitments were made, which everyone is supporting.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Tapadh leibh. Scotland’s offshore islands could produce as much energy each day as some EU countries are sending to the United Kingdom. When will we see contract for difference levels match interconnector requirements? The Secretary of State knows about this subject. Will that come soon, especially for the Hebrides? I say gently to him that, as he knows, probably no other country in Europe would be squandering this opportunity.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am fully committed to remote island wind. In fact, when I was Energy Minister, I spearheaded the move to have a separate pot for renewable island wind. He lobbied successfully, and I am happy to speak to him about that at any time of his choosing.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent comprehensive spending review and Budget announcement shows that the Government are delivering an historic increase in R&D investment to build back better with a high skill and wage economy for all of the UK? That is very much reflected in NETPark in Sedgefield, which he had the pleasure of visiting recently.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I was delighted to see my hon. Friend in his constituency and to see the wonderful businesses that he is promoting. He will know that the CSR is fully committed to driving our science superpower status through unprecedented investment.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lee Rowley)
The Government are committed to a strong, vibrant and diverse manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom. The west midlands—and the UK as a whole—is already a great place to do business. The Government will continue to focus on encouraging businesses, improving the long-term competitiveness and productivity of manufacturing via initiatives such as Help to Grow, the Made Smarter programme, the Catapult programme and others.
Jack Dromey
For this country’s manufacturing base to prosper and succeed, it requires a firm commitment from Government to support the making and buying of goods manufactured in Britain. The Minister will be familiar with the shameful decision by Melrose to shut a factory in Chester Road, Erdington with 70 years of history; those manufacturing jobs were instead exported to Poland. What steps will he take to recoup the £67 million of taxpayers’ money given to Melrose to export jobs to Poland? Will he send an unmistakeable message to Melrose that it will get not one penny more of taxpayers’ support unless it works with the workforce and all the key stakeholders to find an alternative manufacturing use for its site in one of the most deprived communities in Britain?
Lee Rowley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question. We were disappointed, as he was, by GKN Melrose’s decision. Ultimately, such decisions are for individual companies, but we realise the significant impact on his community and are working with the local community to try to find alternative ways to support employees in the area.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister knows that one of the best ways to promote the onshoring of manufacturing jobs and production to the UK is to shape regulation to support enterprise. What steps has his Department made to take forward the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform?
Lee Rowley
We know regulation has a critical part to play in ensuring that we get the frameworks right for long-term investment and support. My hon. Friend will know that one of my colleagues who was appointed alongside me was an author of that report, and the Secretary of State and I, and all Ministers, will continue to review what we can do to improve regulation over the long term.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
When it comes to manufacturing, the first thought on the mind of all Scotland fans this morning is quite how Steve Clarke and his team continue to manufacture so many brilliant wins.
Notwithstanding my necessary gloating, I have a serious question for the Minister. Does he agree and accept that to harness, safeguard and expand manufacturing jobs in Scotland’s tidal energy sector, his Government must deliver the £71 million that the industry has asked for?
Lee Rowley
We know there is a substantial amount of work to do to decarbonise the UK economy, including the energy sector. We are doing that in a range of ways, and I will continue to co-ordinate with the Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), to support that activity.
Stephen Flynn
I am afraid that answer simply does not cut it. This is a world-leading industry based in Scotland, and it has the capacity to provide 11% of the entire UK’s electricity. The Minister will be aware that the likes of Canada, France and Japan have put in place financial mechanisms to capitalise on tidal energy. Is he seriously saying that his Government would rather see jobs offshored to those countries than see them in Scotland?
Lee Rowley
I apologise if the hon. Gentleman did not hear my first answer. I said that the Department will continue to look at all opportunities to decarbonise the electricity grid and to ensure that, over the long term, energy can support that decarbonisation. We will continue to look at tidal, and we will bring forward the opportunities that we are able to bring forward.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Chancellor’s capital investment tax relief of 130% is leading to a sharp increase in manufacturing investment, demonstrated by Alpro at its superb manufacturing site in Burton Latimer in the Kettering constituency?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend gives a brilliant example of where the support that is being provided by the Treasury and the Chancellor can, over the long term, ensure investment in plant and machinery and improvement in productivity across the country.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lee Rowley)
The Government continue to work with the UK steel sector, through the UK Steel Council, regular meetings and constant dialogue, to understand its decarbonisation plans, whether through electric arc, industrial carbon capture equipment or other emerging technologies such as hydrogen.
Richard Thomson
In contrast to Germany’s €3 billion hydrogen plan, there was no new funding announced in the recent Budget for clean steel projects. As 2023 is far too late, with primary steel plants accounting for 15% of UK CO2 emissions, will the Government now commit funding to clean steel projects similar to the ones we see in Germany and Sweden, or will steel communities be left standing by once again while European competitors get on with levelling up their industries?
Lee Rowley
I caution against the hon. Gentleman’s comparison. We have a similar ambition to countries such as Germany on things like hydrogen, and we have already published our hydrogen strategy. I have had extensive engagement with the steel sector in my two months as Minister for steel, including another visit yesterday, and we continue to want to support the industry on its decarbonisation journey. We know it is challenging, but there are already examples and we will continue to work with the industry to ensure it happens.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Years of Tory neglect and inaction mean the UK is falling further behind in the race to win the future of green steel production. Governments around the world are committing to their steel industries with long-term investment, but the Minister, the Budget and, indeed, the hydrogen strategy have failed to deliver any timetable for how the Clean Steel Fund will be implemented. There appears to be no urgency and no plan.
Will the Secretary of State tell us today whether he will back Labour’s plan for a £3 billion steel renewal fund to achieve near-zero-emissions steel production by 2035 to secure UK steel’s future? If not, why is he so content to see British industries lose out, more British businesses go under and more British jobs lost?
Lee Rowley
That is neither an accurate reflection of the situation nor an accurate reflection of the historical support that has been given to the steel industry. Since 2013, there has been £600 million-worth of support for electricity price relief. The industrial energy transformation fund was opened last year and steel companies had the opportunity to apply for it, and we have published the steel procurement pipeline and the steel safeguards. We will continue to work with this important sector to ensure that it can decarbonise and has long-term support for its future.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Question 5, Mr Speaker.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Hands)
The Government’s energy price cap will ensure that millions of households are protected from an instant wave of bill increases this winter. We also have well-established schemes in place for those businesses that are most exposed to energy prices.
Neil Parish
Apologies, Mr Speaker—some of us are very slow learners.
With global energy markets in a state of flux, Tiverton and Honiton constituents, particularly elderly and vulnerable residents, are concerned about the sharp increases in household bills. With Christmas just around the corner, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will do all they can to stabilise the UK energy sector and ensure that those who experience fuel insecurity have the support they need this winter? Many rural households are off grid, so oil and electricity prices are also of great concern.
Greg Hands
I assure my hon. Friend that protecting consumers is our No. 1 priority. The Secretary of State and I engage with Ofgem very often and with energy suppliers constantly, to monitor the health of the energy market. The Government’s warm homes discount, winter fuel payment and cold weather payment schemes will support low-income and vulnerable households throughout the winter.
Shabana Mahmood
Nothing that the Minister has said today will provide immediate relief to enough of the people who are struggling throughout the country. I have had constituents tell me that they are sitting in the cold to try to save money, yet the Government rejected Labour’s call to cut VAT on energy bills. Such a cut would have provided immediate relief to people in my constituency. What on earth does the Minister expect my constituents to do as they face a long, difficult and cold winter, with rising prices and rising energy prices in particular?
Greg Hands
Of course, I share the hon. Lady’s concern for vulnerable people who face potential rises in energy prices. She will know that VAT is a matter for the Treasury but, of course, a VAT cut would be very untargeted towards vulnerable people. That is why we have schemes in place, such as the warm home discount, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments, to help vulnerable and elderly people. The Government have got the policy right.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
On energy security, UK natural gas production has come down from around two thirds of UK demand in 2015 to less than half in the first quarter of this year—with, by the way, around 25% coming ashore at St Fergus in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although we see a welcome increase in UK renewable capacity, it is far preferable, while a reducing demand for gas still exists, to source that gas domestically rather than to depend on foreign imports?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we will always prefer British gas production to foreign imports. Some 50% of the gas we currently consume comes from the UK continental shelf, with an additional 30% from Norway. My hon. Friend is right to mention the transition; I know how much he fights for his constituency’s huge extent and variety of energy producers. Earlier this year, we were delighted to agree the North sea sector transition deal, which will offer a fantastic future for my hon. Friend’s constituents and those right across north-east Scotland.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I think the technically correct answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) is (a) none and (b) none.
The Secretary of State claimed that he was in talks with the Treasury about assistance for energy-intensive industries a month ago; it turns out that he was not, and nothing has happened since. Meanwhile, wholesale gas prices remain at around 200p per therm, compared with 39p per therm a year ago. Industry is suffering grievously and 40% of energy companies have now gone bust, leaving more than 2 million customers without a supplier and forced to take on new suppliers, often at great cost to their bills. Even with the price cap, bills are likely to rise by a further £200 in the spring. This is a train wreck, so what is the Minister doing now to rescue passengers from the carriages and put the rolling stock back on the lines? Or will he just continue to act the part of a disinterested bystander?
Greg Hands
That allegation is rather unfair. We are engaging continuously with the Treasury on these matters. We have already put in place £2 billion of funds to help with the cost of electricity and to protect jobs. We have the £350 million Industrial Energy Transformation Fund, and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), meets regularly—and has done so very recently—with the Energy Intensive Users Group.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Hands)
Our most recent contract for difference allocation round is the biggest ever. Tidal stream will be eligible to compete in pot 2 of the round. With regards to nuclear power, this Government see a vital role for new nuclear. We have just started considering the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill in Committee and, of course, we understand that net zero needs nuclear.
Bob Seely
I congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on putting in place a long-term energy strategy, because we have seen from Germany’s example how disastrous it is not to have that long-term strategy. Very quickly, on tidal, is the financing generous enough, because I understand that some tidal producers are saying that it is not? Secondly, on nuclear, will the £210 million for small-scale reactors—a brilliant thing to do—get us to a position where we are actually producing those reactors, or is this just an initial round of research?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend has dextrously managed to get in two supplementary questions there. On tidal, of course we set the allocation round in September. That round will open on 13 December. Project developers can declare an intention to bid. May I commend his Perpetuus Tidal Energy Centre on the Isle of Wight for its brilliant work on tidal energy?
With regard to small modular reactors, the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his visit last week made it absolutely clear that there is strong support for British technology and British SMR design, and we want to see that move forward and make the UK a world leader in small modular reactors.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
In the Budget, £1.7 billion was allocated just to develop Sizewell C to a final investment decision. The Government are putting through the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill to enter into a 60-year contract for that project, and yet, in terms of tidal stream, there was no Government support whatsoever. Without a ringfenced pot of money, tidal stream will not be able to compete in pot 2, so will the Government urgently reconsider the request for a £71 million pot of ringfenced money?
Greg Hands
Since 2003 successive Governments have provided innovation funding of £175 million to wave and tidal sectors, and there has been £80 million since 2010. We are strong supporters of tidal stream. The Prime Minister was explicit from the Dispatch Box yesterday, reiterating his support. What we now need to do is work with the sector to demonstrate cost reductions and the potential for this technology.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Like nuclear, tidal range has the capacity to deliver predictable large-scale generation with none of the problems of intermittence associated with other renewable technologies. The proposed Colwyn Bay tidal lagoon would have a generating capacity of more than 2 GW. There is considerable local support for the project, and the proposed developers are anxious to proceed. Is my right hon. Friend willing to meet with me and my hon. Friends the Members for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) and for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), who also have an interest in the project, to discuss a way of taking it forward?
Greg Hands
I would be delighted to have the opportunity to meet my right hon. Friend and his colleagues. I am always delighted to see so much energy in north Wales when it comes to questions of energy. I remind him that, when I say that we need to demonstrate cost reductions, the most recent reckoning on prices is that tidal stream is around £220 per MWh, wave is about £280 per MWh, and offshore wind is only about £40 per MWh. With scaling up and investment in the technology, we would expect those costs to come down, but I stress the current disparity between those sectors.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
In order to get those costs to come down, though, we first have to have the ringfenced pot for tidal stream energy. At the Dispatch Box on 3 November—in column 926 of Hansard—the Prime Minister undertook in response to me that he would look again at this question. There is a hard deadline approaching at the end of the month with the contract for difference. When will we hear the outcome of the Prime Minister’s further look again at this question?
Greg Hands
The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the Prime Minister’s words on this matter yesterday from the Dispatch Box, when he was asked about it in relation to his COP statement. I have nothing new to say on the allocation round. We announced the parameters for allocation round 4, which will open in just a few weeks’ time, on 13 December. Project developers will be able to declare their intention to bid, and the round very much includes technologies such as tidal and wave, and other pot 2 emerging technologies.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
The Government have committed to changing the law to ensure that individuals signing non-disclosure agreements are able to make disclosures to the police and regulated health and legal professionals. We will also ensure that the limitations of each non-disclosure agreement are clear.
Mrs Miller
I thank the Minister for all the work that he is doing on this issue. Will he be bringing forward legislation to ensure that it is clear to all employers that non-disclosure agreements should never be used to buy the silence of victims, because that has no place in British society?
Paul Scully
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the campaign that she is running alongside Zelda Perkins and others. She rightly highlights the Government’s commitment to the issue, as well as the previous Women and Equalities Committee’s excellent work in this area. The Government are committed to implementing legislation when parliamentary time allows, but I reassure her that we will crack down on the use of non-disclosure agreements.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the Minister assure us that he will have discussions with his colleagues at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that organisations and businesses that rely on public money, such as the BBC, do not use non-disclosure agreements to silence people who complain about bullying in the workplace?
Paul Scully
We have regular conversations with colleagues in DCMS. Some non-disclosure agreements have a commercial benefit, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that inappropriate non-disclosure agreements must be stamped out.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lee Rowley)
The Jet Zero Council, which is jointly chaired by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Business and for Transport, brings together industry leaders and the Government to discuss how best to reduce the impact of aviation on our environment. The recently published net zero strategy provides the framework, and the commitment made in the Budget to extend funding for the Aerospace Technology Institute to 2031 demonstrates the importance that the Government attach to making progress on this issue.
Huw Merriman
The issue with sustainable aviation fuel is not how to produce it—we can do that—but how to bring the price down so that there is a return on capital and an investment case for it, as there is for renewables. What more can the Government do to support sustainable aviation fuels, and does the Minister agree that we need a global approach to the solution?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the challenges of bringing the cost down, as is the case in so many areas of the net zero strategy, but progress is being made. We are keen to support the development of new technology solutions. He will know that we have set out an ambition for 10% of the UK’s aviation fuel to be SAF by 2030. We recognise the challenge of the cost, but I know that my hon. Friend, in his capacity as Chair of the Transport Committee, has announced an inquiry into the matter; I look forward to working with him and understanding the conclusions and proposals that he puts forward.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It has just been revealed that the Transport Secretary is spending departmental money to lobby against the development of private airfields. This includes lobbying against plans to build a battery gigafactory at Coventry airport. What hope do we have of decarbonising transport when the very Cabinet member responsible for that brief is more interested in having somewhere to land his private jet? What conversations is BEIS having with the Department for Transport to ensure that it takes this matter seriously?
Lee Rowley
I am not sure that this is Transport questions, but it is a question in that spirit. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State absolutely disputes the description that has just been given by the hon. Lady. On her question, there is a huge amount of work under way to try to decarbonise aviation, as demonstrated in the announcements last week at COP and the work that the Government have been doing for a number of years. We will continue to do that to ensure that we hit the net zero target by 2050.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
We are holding the largest ever contracts for difference round next month, as my hon. Friend is aware, and only last month we confirmed up to £160 million to support investment in the floating offshore wind industry.
Darren Henry
The Government have quite rightly taken action to accelerate uptake of electric vehicles by both subsidising those purchasing a new electric car and banning the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030. However, in my capacity as co-chair of the all-party midlands engine group, I recognise that vast areas of the midlands are insufficiently served with charging infrastructure. The Midlands Engine’s 10-point plan for green growth looks to tackle this issue. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can support the Midlands Engine Partnership, deliver greener transport, create jobs, and cut emissions?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and the Midlands Engine Partnership to discuss how we can decarbonise our economy. I know he does a fabulous jobs as co-chair of the APPG. I have always enjoyed my engagement not only with him but with the Midlands Engine Partnership.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State at least accept that immediate environmental damage is being caused by the pursuit of renewable energy, with 13 million trees cut down in Scotland for wind farms, forests devastated across the world to produce ethanol for petrol, and Drax power station importing millions of tonnes of wood from America each year? Does he not accept that in an attempt to control the world’s climate, we are actually damaging the environment right now?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The right hon. Gentleman and I have exchanged differing views on this subject over many years now. What I do accept is that our drive—our push—for renewables is leading the world in pursuing a decarbonised economy.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The Secretary of State is well aware that Teesside is the centre of the green industrial revolution. In building new renewable energy capacity, can he confirm that he is happy to visit Teesside to see our plans for linking that renewable energy with green hydrogen production to power our homes in Teesside?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Perhaps to the surprise of the House, I can confirm that I am always delighted to visit my hon. Friend. I have done so on many occasions and I look forward to doing so whenever he wants and whenever my diary permits.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
In a speech last month to the Energy UK conference, the Secretary of State made the case for a decisive shift towards clean energy and away from what he termed “volatile fossil fuels”, on which he said
“we are still very dependent, perhaps too dependent”.
Will he therefore explain how a decision by the Government to permit Cambo, an oilfield whose anticipated lifespan would see it still producing oil four years before we are legally bound to reach net zero, would be anything other than fundamentally at odds with that vision?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman will understand that the licences under which Cambo was permitted were actually granted when his own party was in government. He will also appreciate that I have always said that there will be a transition. He and his Labour associates want to shut down the industry and cause mass unemployment among the 250,000 people in this country who work in the sector.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Hands)
This Government are doubling down on our plan to deploy more home-grown, affordable clean energy in this country, and we are putting new nuclear at the heart of that plan. In the past four weeks alone, we have announced £1.7 billion allocated for a new large-scale nuclear power station, a new nuclear Bill to boost private capital and cut build costs, £210 million to back Rolls-Royce’s small modular reactor plan, and £120 million for future nuclear projects—new nuclear made and manufactured here in Britain.
Paul Bristow
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to increasing the generation of renewable energy in the UK and attracting investment in our renewable energy sector, especially the nuclear energy industry. The green industrial revolution is well under way in Peterborough. Will he join me in congratulating Peter Brotherhood, a manufacturer of 150 years standing, whose modular steam turbine offering, manufactured in the heart of my city of Peterborough, can promote further innovation in the nuclear energy sector?
Greg Hands
A previous question referred to Teesside as the centre of the green industrial revolution, but Peterborough is also one of the great centres in this country of the green industrial revolution, and there is no better champion of that than my hon. Friend, who is right at the centre of it. He is right that the £120 million nuclear innovation fund will create options for future nuclear capability, including the recent Rolls-Royce small modular reactors, which have £210 million of funding. There are plenty of opportunities there for his constituents to get into, and I thank him for his championing of the green industrial revolution.
Mark Menzies
I welcome the Government’s commitment to a new generation of nuclear power plants, representing a big step in our move towards net zero. Fylde, as the home of Springfields, the UK’s only civil nuclear manufacturing plant, will be playing its part in this transition, but following the recent announcements of the £210 million in new Government funding for Roll-Royce SMRs, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the fuel for the next generation of nuclear power will be manufactured in the UK, and in Lancashire?
Greg Hands
There is plenty of interest in Lancashire, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend knows that I am well aware of how important Springfields is. In fact, we had meetings in the Department about it, as it is the only civil nuclear fuel manufacturing plant, as he rightly points out. It will play an important role as we further develop our new nuclear capability. I am looking forward to working very closely with my hon. Friend, who is a consistent champion of nuclear in this country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Northern Ireland does not have any nuclear power generation possibilities, but can the Minister outline how Northern Ireland can benefit from nuclear power, because we want to have the opportunity, the same as the rest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Greg Hands
We are a Government for the whole United Kingdom. The hon. Member will know that Northern Ireland is importantly different from Great Britain in its electricity generation, grid and network. Overall, the UK’s nuclear capability will offer fantastic job opportunities—high-skill, high-tech jobs—for people from right the way across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
We are decarbonising heat through the renewable heat incentive, with an estimated £1 billion this year, and we have announced the boiler upgrade scheme, the green heat network fund and the launch of the green gas support scheme later this month.
Munira Wilson
Zero carbon homes was a Liberal Democrat policy that the Tories scrapped after the coalition. That means we now need to retrofit a million new homes. Will the Secretary of State commit to a zero carbon homes standard once again for all new homes built in this country?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am pleased to inform the hon. Lady that we have a heat and building strategy that sets out clear plans and clear ambitions for decarbonising heat, particularly sources of heat in buildings and in homes.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lee Rowley)
We have continued to engage extensively with energy-intensive companies, including by visits from me as recently as yesterday. We want to understand their concerns and help secure a competitive and viable future for industries, which support so many high-skilled, high-wage jobs across the UK.
Robert Largan
High Peak is home to the UK’s largest quarries and much of our lime production industry. Those lime producers are essential for construction, engineering and infrastructure, but they are being hit by a double whammy of soaring global energy prices and an outdated UK emissions trading system, which is still benchmarked at the old EU level, geared towards European plants operating to a significantly lower standard and also in receipt of generous state subsidy. The UK’s lime producers are committed to doing their bit to tackle climate change, but the current benchmark is unachievable given their production chemistry. I urge the Minister to urgently review the UK’s emissions trading system benchmark for lime producers.
Lee Rowley
As a fellow Derbyshire MP, I know how much of a loud, independent and big voice my hon. Friend gives to High Peak since his election in 2019. I am proud to work with him. On this specific subject, we know there are long-term challenges for industries and individual sectors, and we are grateful for his comments. I am happy to meet him to talk more about this, if that would be helpful.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lee Rowley)
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of driving down the cost of transition to tread more lightly on the Earth over the long term. Significant progress has already been made in the cost of technologies such as solar panels, and the recently published net zero strategy commits to working with business to realise further economic opportunities.
Gordon Henderson
While I welcome that answer, does the Minister agree that achieving net zero emissions will depend on individual householders? Many people in my constituency are finding it difficult to afford their fuel bills, even without the cost involved in installing new heating systems such as heat pumps. What can the Government do to help those people?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is right that we must work with householders and businesses on a longer-term basis so that we can deliver the net zero ambitions we set ourselves by 2050. As the Minister for Business, Energy and Corporate Responsibility has highlighted a number of times, we are trying to drive down the cost of technology over the long term. A number of firms have come forward on some of the technologies we hope to use, such as heat pumps, and have indicated it should be possible to do that.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
First, I congratulate the COP26 President, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), on his adept handling of the COP26 negotiations in Glasgow. My Department’s priority now is to turn all that ambition into concrete action. We will continue to attract private investment into green projects, and I am happy to announce that in recent weeks we have seen nearly £10 billion of new commitments at the Global Investment Summit, with £1 billion from SABIC on Teesside, and £230 million announced by Ford on Merseyside. We are getting on with the job of delivering a stronger economy for the UK.
Robert Largan
I have recently been contacted by Prisma Colour, another fantastic local business in High Peak that does really important work. Unfortunately, it has been hit by a more than doubling of its energy bills in recent months, which is simply not sustainable. I welcome what the Government are trying to do in the long run to ease supply pressures and help energy-intensive industries to bring down bills, but what can be done in the short term to help fantastic employers such as Prisma Colour?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the excellent work he has done in a short time, representing his constituency. He knows that across Government we have regular conversations about how to help energy-intensive industries, and I would be happy to meet him and his constituents to discuss what we are doing.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in commending the COP26 President on the progress made at COP26, but we know much greater action is required, and it is the Secretary of State’s job to ensure that every part of our Government acts. There is an immediate test with the UK-Australia trade deal: yesterday, the Australian Government reaffirmed their 2030 target, which is consistent only with 4° of warming, and there are reports that our Government have allowed the watering down of temperature targets in that deal. Surely, if we are serious after Glasgow about not letting big emitters off the hook, the deal must be rewritten to enshrine in it a proper plan for Australia as well as the UK, including for 2030, to keep 1.5° alive.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we have a duty to ensure that we put net zero at the centre in treaties and in our international obligations. Where I dispute with him is that the Australian deal does mention Paris climate ambitions and does commit to decarbonisation. Lastly, for the first time ever, the Australian Government have committed to net zero. That is a huge achievement, which I wish he would support and endorse.
Edward Miliband
The Secretary of State should not be defending the Australian Government’s 2030 target. It is he who said about the negotiations:
“There may have been an issue about specifically putting the 1.5° on the face of the negotiating mandate.”
It is time for the Government not only to talk tough, but to act tough, because we must put pressure on countries such as Australia. There is a clear pattern of behaviour here on climate. Too often, this Government face both ways: the Cumbria coal mine, the Cambo oil field, cutting overseas aid for the most vulnerable countries, cutting air passenger duty for domestic flights and failing to invest in green recovery at home. He is the man supposed to be in charge of ensuring the Government speak with one voice. Why does he think he is failing to do so? Is that the reason why people are calling for the COP26 President to take back control of energy and climate change?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The COP26 President did a marvellous job, and the person speaking with two voices is the right hon. Gentleman. On the one hand, he says COP was a great success, and then on the other hand, he is saying the Government have failed. It is inconsistent and it is implausible.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lee Rowley)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have made huge progress so far or we have made a good start in trying to achieve decarbonised flight, and we will continue to do that. It is examples such as the fantastic work demonstrated over the summer, which I know he was present for, at Exeter airport, supported by the Department for Business, that will allow us to meet our long-term ambitions in this sector.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman will know, from his long experience in this House, that many of these issues relate to financial disclosure, which is obviously in the remit of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I am particularly interested in this deal. I think he is absolutely right that people who are shareholders and people who are customers have every right to transparent data, and I would very much support that.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Lee Rowley
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he does in Ashfield and for his incredible voice in this regard. He is right to highlight how technology will take much of the weight of the transition over the next 30 years, and the importance therefore of companies supporting such technology development. We are engaging with businesses, and we will continue to do so, through programmes such as boosting access for SMEs on energy efficiency. I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about that if it helps.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. The Office for Product Safety and Standards, over the period since the campaign was launched in April, has taken 10,000 unsafe products off the market, and it continues to work to identify products available online that pose a serious risk. We are reviewing the UK’s product safety framework in this area, but I will happily meet the hon. Gentleman.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Hands)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his long-standing interest in this question. He will certainly know that, although nuclear is 16% of our current electricity generation, 12 of the 13 current nuclear power plants will be decommissioned or will no longer be producing by 2030. It is absolutely vital that we renew our nuclear capability, and I look forward to my right hon. Friend helping and supporting us in that effort.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Greg Hands
Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] I will answer that question, because the Secretary of State is due to make a decision on the application by 21 January 2022, and the Secretary of State of course has a quasi-judicial role in determining this live planning application so it would not be appropriate to comment on specific matters regarding the proposals as that might be seen as prejudicing the decision-making process.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Paul Scully
As Minister for London, every time I go and see a business or business representative organisation my hon. Friend has been there before to champion the Cities of London and Westminster and the central activity zone in London which is so important for the culture and ecosystem of our great city. We want to build a high-wage, high-skill economy, and the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors are at the heart of that. The strategy will include the reopening and we will build resilience through increased staff supply.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Kwasi Kwarteng
I remind the hon. Lady that this Government are the first UK Government to commit to a North sea transition deal. That deal is a world first; it is leading the world and showing how we can decarbonise a historically very productive sector to drive new technology and new economic opportunity.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
Greg Hands
I welcome Infinite’s work supporting renewable projects and my hon. Friend’s engagement in this. PPAs can improve the financial viability of renewables built without Government support. We anticipate that PPAs will complement Government mechanisms such as the contracts for difference scheme. Officials are investigating whether Government can play a role in encouraging further growth in the PPA market, and of course I am happy to meet my hon. Friend on this at any time.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) said, Scotland’s world-leading carbon capture and storage project at St Fergus was snubbed by the Government in favour of their pork-barrel interests in the red wall. Will the Secretary of State guarantee the Acorn team funding in the next round, or should we conclude that Scotland can only decarbonise with independence?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Again, I have to completely refute what the hon. and learned Lady says. The position is absolutely clear: Acorn was an excellent project and is on the reserve list, and I am looking forward to working with her constructively to make sure we land this very exciting project.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The sooner the offshore transmission network is constructed in the southern North sea, the better. It will save money for consumers and limit the damage to local communities and the environment. So will the Minister commit to restarting the previously planned consultation on a regulated asset base finance model for renewables and low-carbon energy-generating assets as soon as possible?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for his continual engagement on this issue. He will know that I met his colleagues in the OffSET group of MPs—the Off Shore Electricity Grid Task Force—very recently. On the offshore transmission network review, Ofgem has consulted on options for delivery models for offshore connections, including a regulated asset base approach. There continues to be ongoing work, and I am looking forward to meeting my hon. Friend at the next meeting of OffSET, or individually.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Under this Government, the gig economy workforce has trebled in the last five years, fire and rehire is accepted, zero-hours contracts are supported, inadequate sick pay is ignored, and sanctions for non-payment of the minimum wage are absolutely pitiful. Why, then, did the Government ditch their own employment Bill and block the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner)?
Paul Scully
The UK has one of the best employment rights records in the world. We have made good progress in bringing forward measures that add flexibility for workers while ensuring the protection of employment rights, such as banning the use of exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts and legislating to extend the right to a written statement of core terms of employment to all workers. We will continue to make sure that we consider options to improve clarity on employment status, and we will bring forward an employment Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
In Suffolk and Norfolk, investment in research and development is vital to making the most of the opportunities emerging in such sectors as low carbon and life sciences, as well as to tackling pockets of deprivation, particularly in coastal areas. It is thus concerning that, in the Budget Red Book, the east of England is coupled with London and the south-east as an area from which spending on R&D will be diverted and in which it will be discouraged. Will my right hon. Friend work with his colleagues across Government to ensure that this discrimination against Suffolk and Norfolk is removed and is not included in the levelling-up White Paper?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I pay tribute to the fantastic work that my hon. Friend has done representing his constituents over 11 and a half years. He will know that I personally, as a Minister, have always been committed to the east of England. I have visited him in Lowestoft, I have visited offshore wind projects, and I would be very happy to speak to him about how we can drive the R&D programme and how East Anglia and his constituents can benefit from the UK’s science superpower status.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Is it not the case that the most exciting industrial development in the UK at present is hydrogen production? Does the Secretary of State welcome the pioneering work by JCB, under Lord Bamford’s direction, along with the partnership with Queen’s University Belfast, to produce the first working hydrogen combustion engine, which has made the past the future? What support will the Secretary of State give to capitalise on that engineering excellence to ensure that British jobs and British tech flow from it?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that I am fully conscious and fully supportive of the great work that Mr Bamford and his colleagues are doing driving Wrightbus and driving the hydrogen economy. The hon. Gentleman may know that I am very shortly to visit to Northern Ireland to see that great work on the ground.
Terrorist Incident at Liverpool Women’s Hospital
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on Sunday’s incident at Liverpool Women’s Hospital.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
The explosion outside Liverpool Women’s Hospital just before 11 o’clock on Sunday was a shocking incident, and my thoughts are with all those affected and the people of Liverpool, the city of my birth. I would like to thank the emergency services for their typically quick response and professionalism, and the police for their work on the investigation, which continues at pace.
The House will understand that I cannot comment on the details of this case as there is an ongoing live investigation. We are, of course, monitoring it closely. The police have stated that the motivation for this incident is yet to be understood. However, this is a further stark reminder about the threat we all face from terrorism. Our world-class security and intelligence agencies and counter-terror police work night and day to keep us safe.
Yesterday, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre took the decision independently of Ministers to raise the UK national threat level from substantial, meaning an attack is likely, to severe, meaning an attack is highly likely. JTAC, which operates independently of Ministers, considers all relevant intelligence and information to produce an agreed assessment of the threat from terrorism.
The public should remain alert but not alarmed. I know that hon. Members will want to avoid speculation about the case. I would urge the public and the media similarly to avoid speculation at this stage. Public safety is one of our chief priorities. We will continue to work with the police, alongside our world-class intelligence and security agencies, to confront and combat the threat from terrorism.
Kim Johnson
Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for granting this urgent question, but I am very surprised that the Secretary of State is not here, given the seriousness of the matter.
I would like to start by taking this opportunity to express my deepest gratitude to the police, our emergency services and staff at Liverpool City Council for responding in such a quick and professional manner; and to the heroic staff, patients and families at Liverpool Women’s Hospital for remaining calm and continuing to provide vital services. The work and resilience they have all shown at this difficult time showcase the very best of my great city.
The explosion in my constituency on Sunday rocked our great city. Like everyone, I was horrified to learn what had happened and grateful it was not worse, thanks to the actions of taxi driver David Perry. Liverpool has always been a diverse and welcoming city, and we pride ourselves on being a city of sanctuary. Now more than ever, we need to work together to support our communities and show that we remain united against the attempts to divide us.
Incidents such as these, while extremely rare, always provoke a spike in race hate, particularly against the Muslim community. My team have been hearing of incidents where women wearing the hijab are facing abuse. I am aware that funding is available through the places of worship scheme to help to provide security against hate crimes, and that the Government provide Community Security Trust Jewish communities with £14 million of funding every year. I also note that the Muslim Council of Britain has repeatedly raised the funding they receive as not proportionate to the risks they face, especially since the Government’s latest figures show that they are the target of 45% of all religious hate crimes—this is the greatest percentage of any faith group and double that of the second highest group. Will the Minister take the opportunity to review the amount of funding all faith communities receive every year to ensure that adequate and proportional resources are allocated to protect communities, including at times of heightened risk such as these?
We must take this opportunity to learn lessons from this tragic affair and take steps towards a more effective asylum system and immigration system. I hope the Minister will consider that ahead of the upcoming Nationality and Borders Bill and reconsider its inhumane approach.
As we continue to search for the truth behind this appalling incident, we must remain alert but not alarmed. We must stay calm, look after each other, pull together as the great diverse city we are, and not allow anyone to exploit this situation to divide us. At times like these, we must stand in solidarity, renew our resolve and remember we have far more that unites us than divides us.
Kit Malthouse
I applaud the hon. Lady’s final sentiment that we are more united than divided, particularly in the face of terrorism.
The Home Secretary could not be here, but I can reassure the hon. Lady that this has been given the highest importance in the Home Office and that the Home Secretary has been in touch with the investigators, as has the Prime Minister, right since the incident itself. In fact, the reason the Minister for Security and Borders, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), is not here to give a statement is that he is arriving in Liverpool as we speak to understand what the frontline responders have done and the stage of the investigation, and to stand with the community, as she says, as they bind themselves together.
This is a part of Liverpool I know extremely well. I was born and brought up there. I walked those streets and played in nearby Sefton Park as a child. As the hon. Lady says, it is a part of the city which is inclusive and welcoming and which I know will stand together to recover from this dreadful event.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) on securing this urgent question, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it should not really have been necessary for her to seek it? Inevitably, there are going to be speculations in the media about an incident as serious as this. No one appreciates the pressures on Home Office Ministers in particular more than the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, but can he please take the message back that, when something like this happens, even if there is not much to be said, it ought to be said to this House in the first instance, at the first available opportunity?
Kit Malthouse
I understand my right hon. Friend’s sentiments. As he will know, particularly with regard to the threat level, a written ministerial statement was issued yesterday. We understand the need to keep the House informed and to provide reassurance, but the issue with statements to the House is that they have to be timed at such a stage where we believe that the balance is right between the information that we can give and the likelihood of further speculation about a case emanating from a statement, and that is sometimes difficult. But I take his point about the implications and will certainly think more carefully about the timing in future.
Mr Speaker
Just from my point of view, a written ministerial statement to the House is not good enough. It should be a statement to Members. They expect it, so please let us not hide behind that in terms of what we think is right or wrong. We all know what is right and wrong.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
One always feels a sense of responsibility and sadness on occasions such as this, but I feel it particularly today as a Merseyside MP. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) said about the emergency services and the victim of the attack, and I thank her for the leadership that she has shown locally over the past number of days.
The criminal investigation of the events in Liverpool is moving quickly. An individual who counter-terrorism police believe is the strong suspect and perpetrator has been named, although many questions remain. It is understandable, after the second incident in a matter of weeks, that the current terror threat level has been raised to severe. As the Minister said, it is critical that people should be not alarmed, but alert. Will he ensure that agencies have the resources to reinforce that message?
There are reports that a home-made explosive device was used in this appalling attack. After the 2017 series of attacks, the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is chaired so well by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), published a report that included recommendations on the use of and construction of such devices—namely, regulation around the ingredients or chemicals used to make them. Why have none of those recommendations been implemented after four years? Will the Minister look at that again?
We need to look at how another perpetrator was radicalised. The Government’s counter-extremism body came forward with several recommendations that, again, have not been implemented. We know that Ministers are taking funding away from key counter-extremism projects. Why is that, and will the Minister look at that again?
We must also look at information sharing between intelligence agencies, our police and public bodies. They need the fullest possible picture of individuals of concern to take the necessary action. Does the Minister agree, and will he look at that again?
We know that the Government have had a report on dealing with self-initiated and self-radicalised so-called “lone actors”. What is happening with that report? What is being done? The Minister will know that the Opposition have called for a judge-led review.
Finally, Liverpool people, in my experience, are resilient, but never, never harsh. Liverpool will continue, I am sure, to be the welcoming and warm place famed the world over for its hospitality.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. As he knows, significant resources are available to our counter-terrorism policing colleagues and there have been significant extra resources over the past couple of years for Merseyside police, which I know and believe they will put into action in this case.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions that invited me to speculate on some of the lessons that we may learn from this incident with regard to, for example, materials or, indeed, the motivation of the alleged attacker. At the moment, the police have said that none of that is yet clear. Once the investigations are complete, and we have the full picture of the individual’s activities online and offline and of his lifestyle and possible associates—we do not know yet—we will be able to learn some of the lessons for the future. And I join the hon. Gentleman in knowing that Liverpool will bind itself together, as the city has done so many times and will again.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
What action is the Home Office taking in its area of competence to review all the policies that could have a bearing on this and similar attacks? We would like reassurance that more could be done, as those are unacceptable.
Kit Malthouse
As hon. Members will know, the phenomenon of terrorism in the modern world is fast-moving and dynamic, so we must be, too. I reassure my right hon. Friend and the House that constant attention is paid to our ability to prevent these kinds of attacks, where we possibly can. He will know that, since 2017, counter-terrorism policing in its wider sense has prevented, I think, 31 attacks. We constantly learn lessons from incidents not just here in the UK, but around the world, so that we try to stay one step ahead in our preventive efforts. I can reassure him that constant attention is paid to refining what we do and getting better and better at it.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The SNP unequivocally condemns this dreadful crime, particularly as it came when the people of this country were preparing to remember those who died to defend our freedoms. We send our thoughts and best wishes to the people of the great city of Liverpool, and our sincere thanks to Dave Perry, whose courage and presence of mind almost certainly prevented a greater loss of life. We wish him a full and speedy recovery. We echo the calls for people with any information whatever about the attack to come forward, to ensure that everyone involved is caught and held to account for their actions.
I understand that the suspect was not known either to the security services or to the police. Could the Minister say something about what is being done to address the radicalisation of such lone attackers? What strategy is being pursued to reduce the risk of such attacks in the future?
Finally, I share the concern of the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) that there is a belief that the device used was similar to that used in Manchester four years ago. Whether or not that proves to be the case, how confident is the Minister that the current controls on access to such chemicals are robust and strong enough to prevent something like this from happening in future?
Kit Malthouse
While I understand the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments—I, too, offer my good wishes to the driver of the car for a full recovery—he is inviting me to speculate on the possible motivation of the individual by indicating that there may have been some radicalism. As I said earlier, we are not yet clear about the motivation of that individual.
Obviously the hon. Gentleman will understand that investigations, not least digital forensic investigations, are under way. As for the materials used in the incident, there is ongoing, extensive forensic examination of premises that have been occupied and of the vehicle on site. Until we know exactly what the circumstances are, it is hard to draw any conclusions, as the hon. Gentleman asks me to, but when we do, I am sure that we will be able to find a way to let the House know.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I extend my thanks to the emergency services in Liverpool and Merseyside and the security services for the incredible work that they do, and to Mr Perry for what appears to be considerable bravery on his part.
As my right hon. Friend says, it would not be right to speculate on the motivations of the individual involved, but it is true that we have a significant problem in this country with extremism and extremist ideologies—a problem that we need to confront with renewed seriousness. He and the Home Secretary are equipped with a number of major reports, including Baroness Casey’s on integration and Sara Khan’s on potential changes to the law, and they either already have or will shortly have William Shawcross’s report on the effectiveness and potential reform of the Prevent programme. When will my right hon. Friend respond to those reports and set out the Government’s strategy?
Kit Malthouse
I understand that my right hon. Friend is not necessarily associating this particular case with the strand of work that he is looking at, but he is quite right that there have been a number of reports over the past few years that have looked into the very difficult job of combating radicalism, not least in an internet age. I know that he is impatient for change. My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister for Security and Borders are applying themselves with some enthusiasm to that area of business, because although we can do a lot on prevention from an organisational and a policing point of view, in the end it is critical that we get to the root cause: the radicalisation, often self-radicalisation, of individuals, which often happens online.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
This was a truly awful attack, which it appears could have been much worse. I join other hon. Members in thanking the emergency services and in sending our support to David Perry and his family and to the staff and patients at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, who will have faced such great shock as a result of this awful incident.
There has also been an increase in the terror threat level. Previously, when the terror threat level has been increased, Ministers have come to this House to make a statement; rightly, there were also statements after Streatham, Reading and other terror attacks, and of course after the awful murder of our colleague. I urge the Minister to take that point back, because I think this was a bad misjudgment.
How far does raising the terror threat reflect concerns among security services about the increase in online radicalisation during the pandemic?
Kit Malthouse
I am sure that the House will have heard loud and clear both your implication, Mr Speaker, and that of the Chair of the Committee about our coming to the House in a timely fashion. I understand that, notwithstanding yesterday’s written statement, an oral statement was preferable in your view.
As for the raising of the threat level, the right hon. Lady will know that a number of data points are pulled in for that independent assessment, but this decision was made in the light of the two recent incidents—the death, sadly, the awful killing, of Sir David Amess, and this incident—combined in the round with other information gathered by JTAC. The online world of radicalisation is of course one of the areas that JTAC examines, but I think that it takes into account a more rounded picture of the overall threat.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Notwithstanding the reason that the Minister has just given for the raising of the threat level, both the incidents to which he has referred involved, effectively, lone wolves. Is he in a position to share with us some of the rationale for raising the threat level nationally?
Kit Malthouse
I understand my right hon. Friend’s desire for more information, but he will know that we do not, as a rule, discuss the reasoning behind our security levels, just as we do not discuss specific security arrangements or, indeed, specific security tactics or capabilities. While there are mechanisms in the House to oversee what we do, not least the Intelligence and Security Committee, I hope my right hon. Friend understands that it might not be helpful to our general security for me to discuss these matters in public.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Let me first pay tribute to Chief Constable Serena Kennedy, her officers at Merseyside Police, Counter Terrorism Policing North West, Phil Garrigan, the chief fire officer of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service, and all the other emergency responders for their rapid response in reassuring our people and communities including those in Kensington, in my constituency, which still has a heavy police presence. My thanks also go to the incredible staff at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, and I wish David Perry a very speedy recovery.
Given that the picture is still unclear in respect of the wider investigation, may I ask what additional resources will be allocated to Liverpool via Merseyside Police and Counter Terrorism Policing North West, to help them to conclude their investigation at the earliest opportunity?
Kit Malthouse
As I said earlier, we believe that Merseyside Police and the regional counter-terrorism police have adequate resources. Obviously, national resources have also been devoted to this investigation. At present I am not aware that we have received any request for further assistance, but I am sure that if there is such a request, we will be able to look at it.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
While I appreciate that this is a live investigation and we clearly cannot speculate on all the details, reports in the media that the suspect was an asylum seeker have understandably raised considerable concern among my constituents. Does my right hon. Friend agree that effective border controls are vital to maintaining public confidence in public security?
Kit Malthouse
As my hon. Friend says, there has been a great deal of speculation in the media and elsewhere, and he will forgive me if I refrain from speculating on the background and therefore the possible motivations of the individual concerned. However, on a separate issue, he is right to suggest that all nations need compassionate, fair and swift border controls that deliver on their duty to those fleeing persecution around the world, while at the same time ensuring that there is an orderly way in which to enter the country.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I want to express, across the River Mersey, the solidarity of the people of the Wirral with the communities in Liverpool who have had to deal with this issue. Will the Minister tell us a bit more about his views on how we can counter self-radicalisation and on the fact that the security services are particularly worried that it may have been turbocharged during lockdowns, and his views on how a strategy to counter that might be being developed?
Kit Malthouse
Given that, in strict terms, this is obviously not my portfolio—I am here today because the Security Minister is in Liverpool himself—I am not sure that my views would necessarily be the most helpful thing to give today. It is the case, however, that in respect of both crime generally and possible radicalisation online, we are working through the implications of the lockdowns and the impact of covid on particular individuals who may be susceptible as a result of having spent time in confinement and been exposed to material to which they would not otherwise have been exposed. Those lessons are being learnt as we speak, and I am sure that in time my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister for Security and Borders will come forward with their proposals.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I have been contacted by many constituents wanting to stand in solidarity with Liverpool and pay tribute to the emergency services. I do not wish to speculate on the motivations of this lone actor, but I wonder whether the Minister has had time to read a report on the “tipping point” into extremism that I produced with the Home Affairs Committee. It contains a large number of recommendations on working with social media platforms to ensure that they do not promote, or engage young minds in, delivering lone acts of violence such as this may have been. Will the Minister update us on what we are doing about social media companies that do not remove those platforms?
Kit Malthouse
I know that the hon. Lady has done a vast amount of work in this area, and we congratulate her and thank her for it. She is right: while we entrust a huge amount of our safety to our police forces—and, in particular, to our counter-terrorism police and those who promote the Prevent programme and other radicalisation prevention strategies—we all have a role to play in our collective safety, including the executives and others of social media companies, who need to think about the role that they play in shaping young minds for the future. That is not, as I have said, to speculate on the motivation in this case. I speak in general terms, as a father with children, and I know that there are young minds out there to be shaped. Those companies are part of the shaping, and they need to step up to that responsibility.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I commend Mr Perry for his bravery, and I commend all the emergency services that came to the rescue. I wholly and unreservedly condemn the terrorist act that took place. It was a premature act in that the fuse probably went off earlier than it was intended to, and it could have been far more devastating to the city of Liverpool and indeed to all of us.
For too long—for the last 20 years—we have spoken of addressing radicalisation and extremism. We do not appear to be making headway. I agree with what was said earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), the shadow security Minister: we should be looking far more closely at this issue, and providing support and resources not only for the security services but for the local police to enable them to be more active.
Kit Malthouse
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration, and I apologise to the House for not being able to say more about this case at the moment, but I must reiterate that we are not yet clear—and the police have stated in terms that they are not yet clear—about the motivation for the attack. The time will come for us to draw lessons from it, and indeed from other attacks, and apply them to the further work we can do to protect ourselves, both in dealing with those who may be radicalised and, more practically, in dealing with the groups who may be organising the attacks. However, this is a difficult and complex area of work. I hope the House will give the police the space that they need to complete the investigation and learn those lessons, from this incident and, as I have said, from the previous incident.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
We are fortunate in this country to have superb counter-terrorism forces. They face myriad different threats, but in the light of recent attacks, will there be a pivot among the security services and the police towards concentrating on lone actors, who are in many ways the most difficult to identify and prevent?
Kit Malthouse
As my hon. Friend rightly points out, this is one of the most difficult areas of investigation. While I cannot speculate on whether or not there will be such a pivot, I hope my hon. Friend knows that—as I said earlier—we are constantly paying attention to where we believe the threat is coming from, and refining our ability both to identify it and to prevent it from emerging in the first place.There have been a number of different styles and natures of attack over the years. For example, he will remember what became known as the “Mumbai-style” attack, which took place some time ago and had implications for our resilience. We did extensive work to protect ourselves from that style of attack. Similarly, work will be ongoing as we see this phenomenon increase, and I can reassure him that significant attention and resources will be being paid to it.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
May I put on record my thanks to everyone at Liverpool Women’s Hospital and everyone involved in the emergency service response? Liverpool is a welcoming city and a city of sanctuary, and the Minister grew up there. However, we are not immune from minority communities feeling vulnerable at times like this, so I invite him to reassure those communities that the Government are working with local leaders to ensure their security and safety in the weeks and months ahead.
Kit Malthouse
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; I know the city well and it has always been welcoming, certainly in the latter decades, when community harmony has been very good and high. I hope that this will not have an impact on that. The Security Minister is there today to talk to the authorities and the police about what more we can do to help and to understand more about the circumstances, but I know that the two mayors, the police and crime commissioner and all those engaged in the welfare of Liverpool will be doing their best to reassure the community and bind it together after such a devastating event.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) on securing this urgent question and join her in thanking the security services and the members of the emergency services who were involved. It has been widely reported that TATP was used in this attack. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) said from the Front Bench, in 2018 the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which I serve, produced a report on the 2017 terrorist attacks. It made four recommendations on this, with recommendation N calling for the outdated system of regulation of these chemicals to be updated. In response to the Committee’s report, the Government simply noted the conclusion and said that they were committed to developing a system of regulation. The Minister says that things are unclear and he cannot comment on them, but what is clear is the fact that none of those recommendations have been taken on board since 2018. Why?
Kit Malthouse
As the right hon. Gentleman points out, I cannot comment on this. I know that there has been a lot of speculation about the nature of the explosion, but, as I understand it from a briefing just this morning, the forensic examination is yet to be completed. Once it is, we will be able to draw some lessons about the particular combustion and the explosive chemicals that may or may not have been used, and then we can take action accordingly.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
As somebody who was nearby, at Liverpool’s Remembrance Day service at the Anglican cathedral, at the time of the explosion, along with 2,000 to 3,000 other people, I want to join in commending Merseyside police and the fire and rescue services in particular for their swift and effective action to keep the city and its citizens safe.
Liverpool is a city that believes in solidarity and helping others, as we have seen in my constituency, where hundreds of recently arrived Afghan people, themselves fleeing terror, are staying as they adjust to new lives in the UK. What more will the Government do to ensure that any threats to community cohesion and safety that arise out of these circumstances—there are people out there, not necessarily from the city, who want to cause trouble—are minimised and that no one is allowed to use the events to stoke community tensions?
Kit Malthouse
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating Merseyside police, which is one of our highest-performing police forces across the country, having had a series of great leaders as chief constables, not least the current one. Andy Cooke, who led it before, was also an outstanding leader of that force, which has achieved amazing results. The fact it was able to deal with this incident so swiftly, at the same time as dealing with a major public event not very far away, is a great testament to its skill.
On the community work, the hon. Lady will be reassured to know that colleagues in the community arm of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are engaging with the local authorities in Liverpool to make sure that we do what we can to reassure the local community and keep it as united as it has hitherto been.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I echo your concerns and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) that an urgent question should not have been necessary. I also want to echo the tributes to the emergency services’ response. As a former chair of Merseyside fire and rescue service, I particularly wish to focus on its response and on the measured response from the people of Liverpool and Merseyside more broadly. It is chilling to think that this incident occurred as we stood in silence to remember the fallen—how ironic. I send my thanks and best wishes to David Perry, the driver of the taxi involved in the explosion, for his bravery.
Understandably, this dreadful incident will have unsettled staff in local hospitals, particularly in the Women’s Hospital, where my two granddaughters were born. So will the Minister speak to the Health Secretary to initiate a full review of security at hospitals in the light of this incident, to reassure patients, staff and visitors?
Kit Malthouse
As I say, Mr Speaker, the lack of a statement came from a desire to come to the House at the moment when we could give the maximum information and reassurance, but we hear the message loud and clear. Obviously, following this incident there will be review of security arrangements at a variety of premises. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not want to discuss exactly what those may be, but the raising of the threat level brings with it an implication and an obligation on a number of organisations to review their security arrangements. The British public will see a greater police presence, particularly in areas of public use, to make sure that there is both reassurance and prevention in place.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I serve on the ISC, and I have incredibly impressed by the thoroughness of the information that the Committee has available to it, the reports that are produced and the recommendations that are made. What has concerned me today has been listening to both our Front Bencher and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) explain that recommendations that have been public for quite a while have not been responded to by the Government. Might the Minister be willing to undertake a review of all the recent recommendations that the Committee has put forward, to see what more can be done to make sure that we keep ourselves as safe as possible?
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that and I thank her for her work on that important Committee. I understand the House’s frustration that the discussion of specific security arrangements on the Floor of the House is not necessarily helpful to our overall security. We do have a tried and tested route to look at these things, through the Committee of which she is a member. I am more than happy to go away and discuss with my colleagues what the status is of the various recommendations coming out of that Committee, and, if required, we can put some boosters on to implementing them.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and you, Mr Speaker, for this urgent question, which is very important to the people of Merseyside. I associate myself with all the remarks, including those of the Minister, the shadow Minister and others, about those who served the people of Merseyside on Sunday to make them safe.
The Women’s is a fantastic hospital. Although we have no idea whether the location had anything to do with the incident, I am prompted to ask the Minister about the toxic ideology of misogyny and global evidence that it seems to be behind more and more devastating incidents around the world. May I ask the Minister to say, on behalf of the Home Office, what research it has commissioned on misogyny and how we can make sure we undermine this ideology at source, to keep people safe?
Kit Malthouse
I join the hon. Lady in celebrating the Women’s Hospital in Liverpool, which has been used by members of my family on a number of occasions. I was born at Broadgreen, not at the Women’s Hospital, but there are some fantastic facilities in that city.
Obviously, I understand that the hon. Lady is not intending to speculate on the motivation of the individuals, but she is right to say that there have been a number of incidents internationally and closer to home where ideologies such as incel or people driven by misogyny and therefore targeting women have been a cause of concern, both publicly and privately. I know that there is an examination of this phenomenon ongoing within the Home Office.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
May I pay tribute to the extraordinary resilience and determination of the staff at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, who provide such exceptional support to women and newborns from across Merseyside? I also commend Mr Perry for his bravery.
Sunday’s appalling attack has caused understandable concerns about the health service. Last night, health service trusts in England were urged to review their security measures. Will the Minister assure the House that trusts will not be expected to pay for any security upgrades from their already overstretched budgets and that such costs will be met with additional funding from central Government?
Kit Malthouse
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. It is obviously not for me to discuss what the security arrangements should or should not be—as I have said before, it is not helpful to speculate—but I am sure that whatever resource will help those organisations to become safe will be available either from within their own budgets or from elsewhere.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I want to express my solidarity with the people of Liverpool, where I studied and worked for many years. I fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) is right that some will use the event to peddle their message of hate and division. Without prejudicing this case, how many asylum seekers will be waiting for more than two years for a decision on their applications? Of those, how many will receive mental health support?
Kit Malthouse
I am afraid that the hon. Lady is once again inviting me to speculate on the background, nature and motivation of the individual. I hope she will forgive me if I refrain from doing so. I am happy to take that question in other circumstances and, if she wants to table it as a written question, I will make sure that there is a swift reply on the numbers.
On the hon. Lady’s sentiment, I am reassured about the possible community implications because I know that Liverpool is not a city filled with hate. It is a city where people put their arms around each other and stand together in adversity, as sadly they have had to do too often. I know that they will this time, too.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister outline what can be done to ensure that the taxi driver, David Perry, who looked into the face of evil and acted courageously—eerily reminiscent of those heroes who gave their lives and were honoured on the day when this terrorist sought to murder, take life and disrespect our great nation and democracy—will be able to put food on the table, return to work after his recovery and have a vehicle to earn his living?
Kit Malthouse
It is typical of the hon. Gentleman that he would focus on the welfare of that individual. I will personally ensure that he is getting all the support that he needs to recover properly.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I thank the emergency services on the scene on Sunday for their extraordinary response to a terrifying situation and send solidarity to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and the people of Liverpool.
Remembrance Sunday is a time to commemorate the lives lost in two world wars and subsequent conflicts. It is an emotional time for many, not least veterans in our armed forces. What support are the Government offering to veterans who may have had post-traumatic stress disorder or other mental health conditions triggered by Sunday’s news?
Kit Malthouse
We will have to examine the wider community impacts of the incident once the lessons are learned. As the hon. Lady knows, significant work is being done through our work on the military covenant around welfare and wellbeing for veterans. I hope and believe that the resources available as part of that may be employed in this effort.
Speaker’s Statement
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I must advise Members that the deferred Division scheduled for tomorrow in respect of the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021, which was deferred from Monday 8 November, will not take place because the Department for Transport has withdrawn the regulations in question. The Department expects the regulations to be re-laid shortly, after which they will have to be considered and approved in the usual way.
Points of Order
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety in reference to what you just said about the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021. The regulations, which abolish a safety test with no safety assessment—this has already happened—were debated in the Chamber last week and are opposed by many, including the Association of British Insurers and the Road Haulage Association. We talk a lot about the Government bypassing this place, and it seems extraordinary that an action of such magnitude for road safety has happened without legislation and we do not know when it will happen. Can you advise me on when the Secretary of State might come to the House with said legislation, and on the legality of the Government’s position on such tests and how I might pursue the matter further?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of the point of order. As I said in my statement, the regulations in question have been withdrawn. I understand that the Department intends to bring forward revised regulations, which will be considered by the House in the usual way. If she requires more procedural guidance, I recommend that she raises the matter with the Clerks and the Journal Office, who will advise her on the best way forward.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week Lord Frost made a statement in the other place regarding our relationship with the European Union, negotiations following Brexit and, in particular, the Northern Ireland protocol. He promised my noble Friend Baroness Chapman of Darlington that there would be a subsequent statement in the House of Commons. Today, a written ministerial statement has been placed before the House, which I am sure you agree is not acceptable or appropriate and follows a pattern of behaviour by the Government of excluding elected representatives—not least those from Northern Ireland—from negotiations and updates on the protocol. I would be grateful for your advice on how we can ensure that Ministers are brought to the House to update us on the protocol so that elected representatives can have their say.
Mr Speaker
First, I will certainly look into the matter. It is normally the case that major Government statements are made in both Houses. What I find appalling is that this is the elected House that represents constituents across the country, and yet somehow it seems fit for their lordships to hear a statement that has been denied to this House. My best suggestion would be to try an urgent question in the morning. I am not promising, but I would certainly look at it.
Flooding (Prevention and Insurance)
Tuesday 16th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Flooding (Prevention and Insurance) Bill 2021-22 View all Flooding (Prevention and Insurance) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set national minimum requirements for flood mitigation and protection measures in new build public and private properties enforced by local planning authorities; to place reporting requirements on local and national government in relation to flood prevention measures; to establish a certification scheme for improvements to domestic and commercial properties for flood prevention and mitigation purposes and an accreditation scheme for installers of such improvements; to require insurers to take account of such improvements and any existing flood prevention and mitigation measures that were planning permission requirements when determining premiums; to extend eligibility to the Flood Reinsurance scheme under section 64 of the Water Act 2014 to small and medium-sized enterprises and homes built after 2009; and for connected purposes.
Last Sunday in Glasgow, we saw potentially the most consequential gathering in world history—I refer, of course, to COP26. The Prime Minister opened that conference by acknowledging that, unless we act soon, we would see savage changes in our climate that could have destructive effects on life as we know it. An inevitable consequence of climate change is a change in weather patterns. In 2020, the UN’s environment programme highlighted that increased flooding is likely to be one of the early visible signs of climate change. In Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire—indeed in Yorkshire, the midlands, the south-west and the south-east—we understand that because it is already happening. We remember Storm Ciara and Storm Dennis. In Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire, we remember the devastation of the 2007 floods to homes, schools and businesses. We also remember the tidal surge of 2013 and the city being cut off from the M62 by a flooded A63 in 2019.
There have been some positive advancements in our response to the increasing problems of flooding over the last 15 years, with the Flood Re scheme one good example, but there is still more to do. My recent survey of residents in Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle highlighted their continuing concerns about flood protection and readiness. My Bill seeks to address some of those concerns and to put all future building developments on a sustainable footing.
The long title of the Bill, which I have just read out, sets out five requirements that can be summarised under three areas. First, to set out binding planning requirements for properties, enforced by local authorities. Secondly, to create a scheme, binding on the insurance industry, to recognise flood resilience measures in their premiums. And thirdly, to extend the Flood Re scheme further.
Provided that they are within the scope of current planning law, the property flood resilience measures required in new build properties are currently set by local planning authorities in pre-commencement conditions. That results in adjacent local authorities having different requirements in flood zones with the same rating, which is not only inconsistent but hampers collaboration by allowing local authorities to export their flood-related problems to other areas.
My Bill would create a level playing field by setting minimum standards nationwide. I hope these minimum standards would be along the lines of the highly successful measures put in place by Hull City Council and those supported by the Association of British Insurers, which is calling for the Government to enact schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and align planning policy related to sustainable drainage systems, as recommended by the Climate Change Committee. This common-sense move is supported by both the insurance industry and Flood Re in its most recent review, and it can be supported by Members on both sides of the House. It is about prevention not cure, and it is about building homes that are fit for a changing future.
At present there is no mandatory requirement for insurers to lower premiums for homes where flood risk is mitigated by flood resilience or protection measures. That is largely due to lack of evidence, both at a landscape scale and at the level of individual properties. The only information that insurers currently use in setting premiums with regard to flood risk is commercially available mapping data. As data from national and local government bodies on flood mitigation infrastructure such as lagoons, barriers and sustainable drainage systems is not readily available, it is not used. There is no requirement on the industry to request information at the level of individual properties. That situation must change.
On landscape and infrastructure, the relevant Government agencies must make readily available the information on all flood prevention and mitigation measures in place regionally and locally. The information already exists; it is a matter of collation and access. Once the information is available, insurers must make use of it and incorporate it into their premium calculations. At the individual property level, discounted insurance premiums should be offered for properties with flood resistance measures installed. Indeed, that was a recommendation of Flood Re in its recent five-yearly review.
The ABI’s position is that insurers lack reliable data on the relative effectiveness of measures and lack confidence in their correct installation. Some measures, such as the raising of electrical cabling and plug points above ground level, seem self-evidently beneficial and I have heard conflicting accounts of whether sufficient data on the effectiveness of such measures already exists. However, it would be helpful to everyone concerned to have agreement and clarity on the range of effective measures on which insurers will offer discounts. As well as confidence in the competency of installers, consumers need assurance that putting these protection measures in their home will not only increase resilience to flooding but lower premiums, which is why my Bill proposes a statutory certification scheme. There would need to be funding available to set the standards, and I believe it would be a good idea to make funding available to our universities and industry for the creation and production of new technologies that would lower the risk further.
Let me be clear: Flood Re is a good scheme and is one that I support—I also support many of the recommendations in the latest five-yearly review—but it has two major flaws. First, it does not cover homes built after 2009. I can see the logic, as this discourages building in flood zones, and it was imagined that such homes would be built to be flood resilient, but the truth is that in too many cases this has simply not happened. As a result people find themselves, through no fault of their own, living in flood-prone areas with no flood resilience measures and without cover by the scheme.
I hope my Bill would make it impossible to build a house without adequate flood protections, but in the meantime we need to move Flood Re eligibility forward to a suitable date so that people who are not covered as a result of the current planning system are not left without cover or facing very high premiums.
Secondly, Flood Re needs to cover small and medium-sized enterprises. I appreciate that commercial insurance is different from residential insurance, and I appreciate that commercial insurance effectively has two aspects: the aspect covering a business’s building and the aspect covering its stock and other business needs. I also appreciate that Flood Re may not be suitable to cover stock and business needs, but why can it not be extended to cover the building aspect? Is covering the structural aspect of a residential building not the same as covering the structural aspect of a commercial building? My Bill would extend Flood Re to offer that very protection. It would allow businesses affected by flooding to be in a position to be back on their feet and trading more quickly.
This is not a party political issue, nor should it be a subject of party political point scoring. It is an issue that affects people and businesses in constituencies right across the nation, represented by Members from all parties. It is an issue that will continue to affect those people and businesses and, as the effects of climate change become more acute, it will become deeper and wider.
Many of the proposals in this Bill have the support of the insurance industry and of Flood Re. A survey carried out in my constituency over the summer shows the proposals are supported by many members of the public, too. In many ways, it is common sense to pass this Bill. When it comes to supporting these measures today, we should remember that the tide is rising, both literally and metaphorically, and the time to act is now.
I thank Members on both sides of the House. Unfortunately I was able to choose only 11 Members of Parliament to present the Bill, but I have had a huge wealth of support from Members right across the House, which shows the amount of concern about flooding and flood prevention.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Emma Hardy, Debbie Abrahams, Hilary Benn, Tracey Crouch, Philip Davies, Dan Jarvis, Dame Diana Johnson, Rachael Maskell, Jim Shannon, Karl Turner and Valerie Vaz present the Bill.
Emma Hardy accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 191).
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, 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 Committee on Standards 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; proceedings may continue, though opposed, until any hour, and may be entered upon after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
Committee on Standards
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That, notwithstanding the practice of this House relating to questions already decided in the same Session, this House:
(1) rescinds the resolution and order of 3 November 2021 relating to the Third Report of the Committee on Standards (HC 797) and the appointment of a new select committee;
(2) approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards (HC 797); and
(3) notes that Mr Owen Paterson is no longer a Member of this House.
I have listened carefully to the views expressed since the debate and decision on 3 November, and I make it clear that Members of Parliament must uphold the highest standards in public life. We expect all Members to abide by the prevailing rules of conduct. Paid lobbying is wrong and Members found guilty of it should pay the necessary penalties. Our standards system must function robustly and fairly to support this so that it commands the confidence of Members and the general public.
The Government support the principle of an additional right to appeal in the standards system in the House of Commons and for that potential reform to be explored on a cross-party basis.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
What happened a couple of weeks ago was an extraordinary failure of moral leadership and, for the first time, it has given rise in the minds of many to serious questions about the character of this Government. With hindsight, why did the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friends not recognise the brazen wrongdoing of their colleague?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think the simple answer—[Interruption.] No, I think the heckle from the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) is unfair and unkind. It was simply that the tragedy that afflicted Mr Paterson coloured and clouded our judgment, and my judgment, incorrectly. It is as simple and as sad as that.
The Back-Bench amendment that we supported was intended to facilitate the exploration, on a cross-party basis, of the standards system, with a time-limited, ad hoc Committee. However, I regret that the amendment conflated an individual case with more general concerns. That was a mistake. Crucially, the amendment did not carry cross-party support, which is why we have changed our approach.
The Government fully recognise the role of the Committee on Standards in ensuring that the code of conduct reflects and fosters the highest standards of public life. I would like to thank all the Committee members and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for their service. We await the Committee’s report on the code of conduct with interest. The Committee performs an important role in identifying opportunities to improve the standards system, and I note that the Chairman, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), has made a recent, and helpful, commitment to commission a senior judicial figure to advise on possible changes to the process.
I assure all right hon. and hon. Members that I am always willing to discuss this matter further, and I hope to work with Opposition Members constructively on this issue. We all have the best interests of the House at heart and I hope that, setting aside the previous debate, we will work well together in the weeks ahead.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for facilitating this debate. [Laughter.] On 3 November, he said that the concerns expressed about the individual case in question included:
“the lack of examination of witnesses”—
of whom there were 17—
“the interpretation of the rules relating to whistleblowing…the application of aggravating factors; and the absence of the right of appeal.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 939.]
With regard to the first three of those, what is my right hon. Friend’s current view in relation to that particular case?
Mr Rees-Mogg
First, the House will always have a debate when it wants to have a debate; that is how our procedures work. They are extremely straightforward and ensure that right hon. and hon. Members can come to this House and make objections, if they so wish, to have subjects debated on the Floor of the House—
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give way?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will not give way, because I am trying to answer my hon. Friend. I have already covered his point about last week’s debate: we made the mistake of conflating the two issues of the individual case with the general system, and that did not have cross-party support. That is why the Government have committed to working on a cross-party basis to find and grasp opportunities to improve the system. I will be listening carefully to the insights of Members during this debate. I commend the motion to the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Where to start, Mr Speaker? There must be many a Government MP scratching their head today and asking—with reference to the greatest popstar and songwriter of all time after Schubert—“How did I get here?” I am afraid the Leader of the House still seems to have no answer to David Byrne’s eternal question; allow me to assist. I could suggest a few good books on parliamentary process, or maybe a trip to the Table Office—the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister and perhaps even the Government Chief Whip could do with a bit of revision. I could point them towards some party planners in Bristol who could perhaps help them to learn the basics of how to turn some beer and some crisps into a festivity in a brewery.
When the Leader of the House opened the debate some 13 days ago on what should have been a straightforward motion to approve a Standards Committee report, like the one we now have before us, he used his lengthy speech from the Dispatch Box not really to move the motion but instead to propose a Back-Bench amendment that tore through his own motion and, more importantly, tore through the standards process right in the middle of a live case. The Leader of the House talks of conflation; as he sat down, was he fatigued? Were his fingers in his ears? I do not think so. Had he mastered the art of dozing off while appearing conscious? What explanation can there be for his plaintive lament the very next day, in the days after, and even today in his podcast, that it was a pity that the issues of changing the standards process and the live case had become conflated? It was literally him doing the conflating.
I understand that the Leader of the House might not hang on my every word, but why did he not heed the wise counsel of the Chair of the Standards Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant); of his own former Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper); of the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley); and of any number of others? We all warned the Leader of the House against the dangers of conflation. He was warned, yet conflate he did. He heeded none of the warnings as he led the Prime Minister’s men and women up to the top of the hill and then left them there.
Then came the Government’s screeching U-turn, which the Leader of the House announced the next day at business questions. What followed was yet more chaos. The amended motion is still in place. The motion before us today should have gone through last night but was blocked by a single voice, for reasons that remain a mystery to me but that we may hear shortly. Now, here we are, debating this motion.
When the Leader of the House was asked at business questions how the sham Committee that was included in the messed-up motion, with a named Chair—quite inappropriate—would operate with no funding or cross-party support, I seem to recall that he waved his hands at me and tried to imply that we had not been listening to his words. But we had, and answer came there none.
Absurdly, the Government then resisted the motion suggested by my hon. Friend the Chair of the Standards Committee, as they resisted the urging from me and, no doubt, from others. They could have laid that motion there and then, last Monday, to rectify the mess that they had not just made but quite improperly whipped for, given that this is a House matter.
The motion finally appeared among the remaining orders last night, on a “nod or nothing” basis. I confess, Mr Speaker, that even I was surprised by the chaos last night, as it descended into Chamber farce. I really thought that the Government, having admitted their mistake and squirrelled away the remedy in a late-night, no-debate motion, would surely have made sure that no one was going to mess it up for them again. But oh how wrong I was. To continue the Talking Heads references, this is not my beautiful House. This Government cannot sweep this under the rug. The Leader of the House has now apologised in his podcast, but will he also apologise to the House for the damage that has been done to the reputation of Parliament by this sorry affair?
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy rightly sent an apology to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—the independent standards commissioner—for his outrageous comments when sent out on the morning media round to be the Government apologist for bad behaviour. Which hapless Minister are they going to send out next time? Will it once again be the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who was also sent out to describe all this as a
“Westminster storm in a teacup”?
If it is a Westminster storm in a teacup, it must be a very big teacup, because here we are—
Thangam Debbonaire
Yes, 13 days.
Mr Speaker, standards matter. Scrutiny matters. An independent system to hold everyone in public life to account matters. Standards should not be seen or treated as an irksome bother that you get your mates to change when you are found out. Standards should not be seen as something to be feared, or something to be treated with such distain, incompetence and total absence of leadership, as we have seen from this sorry Government over this sorry affair. To anyone who really loves democracy, standards are the bedrock of everything we do—everything. Once more, it seems I have to remind the Leader of the House that the Nolan principles are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and, finally, leadership.
For democracy to work—for it to be trusted—those values have to be not only integrated into our political system but celebrated and welcomed. No MP must be for hire—not one. Standards should be the guiding light of every day in this place; a frame around what we do; a filter to sift out what must not be done from what must be done; something we demand from ourselves and each other; and something we expect our staff to work to and to hold us to. When our constituents challenge us to live up to these standards, we should be proud that our democracy is working so well that they can do that. How have we got to the point where the Prime Minister has to clarify that the UK is not a corrupt country? How did we get here? How did we get here?!
Let us keep the upward trajectory, started in 1695—I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman might have appreciated that, or that he did appreciate that—making our standards stronger, our systems of accountability more effective, not weakening them as the Government tried to do with, I am afraid to say, the assistance of the Leader of the House. I am glad that the Leader of the House recognises that it was a mistake, but I ask him again if he will apologise to this House.
I also ask the Leader of the House: when will the Government bring forward, or respond to, the 2018 recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on MPs’ outside interests? If he has read that report, which I am sure he has, will he be backing Labour’s motion tomorrow? That motion is based on the part of the standards report on banning MPs from taking political strategy, analyst and consultancy jobs—I got the wording slightly wrong there, but, basically, we are talking about paid directorships and lobbying jobs that MPs should not be doing. The Government must accept the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was set up after a different Tory scandal, to strengthen the system. They must support the current inquiry into the MPs’ code of conduct, which our Standards Committee is in the middle of and, in fact, shortly to report on. The Government should only ever be in the business of updating and strengthening our system. We should never be content for the public to look at us wearily and conclude, thanks to the cynical actions of a very few, that we do not have standards, when we do.
Finally, we should never have been put in this position, but we were by those on the Government Benches, and now they cannot even clear up after themselves. We can now, today—and I hope that we do—end this particular sorry mess of a motion and take it off the books by voting through the one in front of us, mercifully unamended, as it should have been 13 days ago, if only the Leader of the House had been listening.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I hope that this will be the last opportunity for this House to do the right thing and accept the report of the Committee on Standards on Owen Paterson. I trust that no Member of this House is thinking of doing anything other than supporting the motion that has been moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Passing this motion will be a step in the right direction, but it will not undo the damage that has been done by the vote of 3 November. Let us be clear: this is not a party political issue. Damage has been done to all Members of Parliament and to Parliament as a whole.
I read the report of the Committee on Standards into Owen Paterson. I believe that the conclusion was clear and fair: Owen Paterson broke the rules on paid advocacy. The attempt by right hon. and hon. Members of this House, aided and abetted by the Government under cover of reform of the process, effectively to clear his name was misplaced, ill-judged and just plain wrong.
Mrs May
I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I take no interventions. I wish to make my limited points.
In this place, we set rules for people through the laws that we pass. We expect people to obey those rules. We also set rules for our own behaviour as Members of Parliament and we have a right to expect that each and every one of us obey those rules. Sometimes mistakes will be made inadvertently, but the process of independent investigation and a Committee set up by this House with lay members should be able to differentiate those cases and to deal with them.
It has been suggested that, as a result of what happened on 3 November, the rules need to change. I do hope that the Government will be looking urgently and seriously at the 2018 proposals from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I do not think that they quite reflect the motion that the Opposition are putting to the House tomorrow, but they do suggest a clarification and a tightening up of the rules on MPs’ outside interests. It would be a mistake to think that, because someone broke the rules, the rules were wrong. The rule on paid advocacy is a long-standing one. The problem came because there was an attempt to effectively let off a then Member of the House, and that flew in the face of the rules on paid advocacy and in the face of the processes established by this House.
It has also been suggested, as a result of what happened on 3 November, that there are questions about the role of MPs. We should not conflate or confuse those two issues. The first is about ensuring that no company or individual can gain an unfair advantage by paying a Member of Parliament to advocate on their behalf. That is a matter for the code of conduct of Members of this House and the rules of this House. The second is an issue of the service that MPs give to their constituents, and that is a matter for their electorate. Damage has been done to this House. We can start to repair that damage by accepting the report of the Committee on Standards, and I urge every Member of this House to support that motion.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Well, that worked out well, didn’t it? What an absolute and utter disaster. We have seen the Leader of the House standing there, with no apology, no contrition, and no ability to let it sink in just how bad things are. The last place that he wanted to be today was at the Dispatch Box doing exactly the opposite of what he did two weeks ago and saying everything that he did not say when he presented that motion. The Government were doing everything possible yesterday to get to 10 o’clock so that this debate would not be had, only to be holed by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) with the word “object”—best laid plans and all that. What we have is another day of this, another day of headlines, and another day of examining Tory sleaze.
What has happened in those 13 days since the Leader of the House was last at the Dispatch Box? We know that public trust in this Government is now at an all-time low. Their inboxes have been swamped by messages from furious constituents demanding to know what they are going to do about all of this. Day after day, we have been waking up to endless Tory sleaze stories in the national newspapers. Companies are now dispensing with the services of Tory MPs in these lucrative second jobs because of the stink that has been created by all of this, and the Tories have lost their lead in the opinion polls. Things could not actually be worse for them. They would face losing their seats if a general election were called tomorrow, and they have the Leader of the House to thank for their current sorry predicament.
This little plan to save their pal was hatched between the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip, and backed enthusiastically by the Prime Minister. The Leader of the House is supposed to be the clever one. It is he who has the Eton education and the millions in the Cayman Islands. This is all on him, and he is responsible for this mess. Let us remind ourselves of what he said 13 days ago. He was so passionate in his defence of his good friend Owen Paterson that he even invoked one of his favourite Latin phrases. “Let justice be done though the heavens fall,” he extolled in this House in an almost Atticus Finch-like defence of his good friend—his good friend unfairly maligned and maltreated by this House—who had just pocketed a cool half a million pounds and been found to have broken our rules in a consistent and egregious manner. Now the Leader of the House is here doing the exact opposite. If he had even any sense of dignity, if he had a smidgeon of self-respect, he would be long gone. People do not usually survive something like this. They do not survive a story lasting 13 days. He has defied the laws of political science and it is amazing that we find him at the Dispatch Box today.
Let us remind ourselves what we are actually doing today. We are rescinding a Committee that the Government whipped in order to achieve a kangaroo court Committee of corruption that had a Tory majority and a Tory Chair. They did not like the result of our existing Standards Committee, so not only did they set aside its finding, they actually decided to replace the Committee itself. They are so arrogant and have such a sense of entitlement that they thought they would get away with it, and they would have got away with it if it was not for those pesky constituents.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The public have made very clear over the last two weeks their demands for high standards. To be consistent with the new, more respectable position of the Government, does the hon. Member agree that they must revisit and resile from clauses in the Elections Bill that would allow them, through strategic policy statements, to impose their will on the Electoral Commission and to block outcomes from it that they do not like? Does he also agree that proceeding with those aspects of the Elections Bill would make it clear that they have not learnt the lesson that messing with the independent oversight of politicians—in this case, over donations and spending—is really off limits?
Pete Wishart
I utterly agree. I would have thought that today might just be a watershed moment for the Government—that they would look at the whole package of measures that they have proposed to decrease the legitimacy of this House and electoral processes, and that they would then do the right thing on the back of that. But knowing them the way that I do, I doubt whether that will happen.
Mr Dhesi
The hon. Member is being gracious in giving way. I extend my sympathies to the Leader of the House for having been sent out to bat on this very sticky wicket. Does the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) agree that rather than the highly respected independent Commissioner for Standards resigning—as was mooted by Ministers when they felt invincible—it should be the Prime Minister who is considering his position, given that he forced his Conservative MPs to vote to protect his paid lobbyist friend, rather than doing what was right; and that, in doing so, the Prime Minister has egregiously eroded our democracy?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely. The hon. Member brings me to the malicious, malign and utterly disgraceful attempt to undermine and smear our Standards Commissioner. We heard the Business Secretary say last week that the commissioner should consider her position. She should not be considering her position. The Leader of the House should be considering his position, as should the Prime Minister. They needed to undermine the Standards Commissioner in order for their silly, stupid plan to work for them—and, of course, it has not worked at all. So what now? The Government have failed properly to apologise or recognise what they have to done, or to show any sort of contrition—
Pete Wishart
Or shame, as the hon. Member says. That failure means that this issue will not go away; it is going to go on. We are now in the 13th day, but I suspect that this is going to rumble through until just about Christmas. I am afraid that, until the Government get up and show the House and the country that they are truly sorry about what they have done, and will make every effort to ensure that this House is cleaned up, it is not going to get any better for the Leader of the House and his colleagues.
Even the most loyal of Conservative Back Benchers are actually talking about replacing the Prime Minister, ensuring that these out-of-touch Brexiteers who seem to be running the Conservative party get no place near making decisions like this again. There is a new generation of Conservatives. Some of them are actually quite good! I say to them: take control of this away from the Government. The Government cannot do it; they do not know what they are doing. They have got you into this mess, and it is up to you to clean them out and make sure that they are replaced—because, can I tell you something? They are not working in your interests and they are doing everything possible to ensure that you do not get elected. I believe that the days of faux buffoonery are coming to an end on the back of all this.
Let me turn to the position of the Leader of the House. I say to him—somebody who I respect very dearly—that his position is totally and utterly untenable. He cannot come to this House and say one thing passionately and with great concern, and take up nearly all the time to do so, and then come back nearly two weeks later and say the exact opposite. That just does not happen in politics. Even to think that he would get away with it is beyond reason, and certainly nothing like I have ever seen in my 20 years in this House. What he has done defies political gravity. He has opened a Pandora’s box of Tory sleaze; it was he who took the lid off and we can all see what is inside. They think this is all over, but it is not over yet; it has barely just begun.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The motion before the House should be viewed, as I have said in several debates over the last few days, from a fundamental perspective that affects all Members from all parts of the House. It is essential to review the workings of the fair trial system—the investigatory panel—created under the Labour Government in 2003 on the recommendation of the Committee on Standards itself, which consisted of six Labour members, two Liberal Democrats and only three Conservatives. This was to ensure fairness for MPs accused of misconduct in serious cases, as insisted upon by a series of high-level reports, which the House then accepted.
All those high-level reports—including the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999, the Wicks report, and the 2003 Committee on Standards report, especially paragraphs 39 to 42, which set up the fair trial investigatory panel—made it clear that the fair trial requirements would only be applied in seriously contested cases, where the facts were in dispute in relation to alleged misconduct by a Member.
Appendix 2 of the third report shows that the particular case of the former Member for North Shropshire fell squarely within Standing Order No. 150(5). The Standing Order clearly states:
“The Commissioner may at any time in the course of investigating a complaint, and if so requested by the Committee on Standards shall”—
I repeat “shall”—
“appoint an Investigatory Panel to assist”
the Commissioner “in establishing the facts”.
This was not done. I am astonished by how few people seem either to have read or understood this point, but it lies at the heart of the issue. No one in this House or elsewhere could say that a person was guilty or innocent, unless that panel had been set up, completed its work and reported, and that was not done in this case. Not to request, and thereby to require, the setting up of such a panel in seriously contested cases seriously impairs the principles of natural justice specifically referred to in Standing Order No. 150, affecting MPs accused of serious misconduct.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. Will he set out for the House perhaps just one example of a fact that is contested? Mr Paterson contested the interpretation of his behaviour, but I read the report in full and I did not find a single contested fact. Will he set one out for the House, please?
Sir William Cash
I will give my right hon. Friend one example: the question raised by Professor Elliott on the matter of public safety in relation to carcinogenic elements in ham or bacon. As I said in the previous debate on this matter, Professor Elliott recognised that in 35 years, he had never come across such a case. That is one example, but there are others.
Not to request the setting up of a panel also impairs the fundamental rules laid down by article 6—known as the fair trial provisions—of the European convention on human rights, drafted in accordance with British principles of justice in all civil and criminal cases. The failure to implement the requirement of the panel under Standing Order No. 150(5) impairs the report. The door to fairness is opened by the setting up of the panel, and for the sake of all Members of the House it was a mistake not to have done so in this case.
The failure to adhere to the clearly defined six principles of fairness for accused MPs as set out by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 and article 6 of the European convention—including the examination of witnesses and the cross-examination of other witnesses—has adverse consequences as a precedent for Parliament itself. Not a single citizen in the land, even terrorists and criminals, is denied a fair trial under these principles of natural justice, and has the right of appeal in every court and every disciplinary tribunal. The Member in question should have been afforded the procedures under the fair trial arrangements laid down by Standing Orders because we, as Members, are exceptionally excluded from judicial review by article 9 of the Bill of Rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who is a member of the Committee, argued convincingly that the Standing Orders must be reviewed to avoid conflicts of interest. The procedural reforms that will inevitably now have to be made need proper and full examination by the whole House, not only by the Committee on Standards, but it will be tragically too late for the former Member for North Shropshire when new reforms are properly introduced in the near future.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
They say that a week is a long time in politics, but, as others have pointed out, it has been almost two weeks and it is hard to believe it has taken this long for the Government to sort this out. Something deeply serious has now, frankly, become a farce. First, the Government whipped on the amendment, then they U-turned, then they refused to apologise, then they took a week to decide what to do to sort out what was their own creation, and last night that was toppled by one of their own Members.
It is obviously right that the motion be rescinded. I see a lot of agreement across this House on that— I think the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is in a minority of one—but that does not solve many of the issues that we have seen in the past two weeks. The Government have not yet properly explained why they chose to whip the first vote and whether they plan to intervene in House business again. I have already said, as have many colleagues, that standards proceedings belong to this House. The Government have authority through their majority, but they do not have the power to make changes to our rules. At the end of the day, members of the Government, like it or not, are Members of this House, equal to those of us who sit on the Back Benches in that regard.
The Government have not yet apologised or explained why they wanted rule changes. Vague regrets for conflating proceedings against an individual and the process more generally are not an apology. I know, as does any parent, that my children often regret doing something wrong when they get in trouble, but that is not the same as an apology for the action itself. As for why members of this Government want to make our standards processes less independent—well, without a full explanation, and with the media stories of wrongdoing over the past week, I think we can leave it to the public to draw their own conclusions.
The Government have not explained why Members with an interest in changes to the voting system, and indeed Mr Paterson himself, were able to vote in the first process. I would argue that this is not due process. That is why I have tabled an early-day motion asking the Government to bring forward a motion for consideration by this House to amend the Standing Orders to prevent it from happening in the future. I ask the Leader of the House whether he supports bringing in such a motion, and if he does not, to explain why.
We only maintain our authority in this House, and reject accusations of corruption, by upholding our democratic ideals. Rescinding the order from 3 November is a vital start, but we need more, and the public need more.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Rescinding a motion of the House when it has already been passed earlier in the Session—and particularly in this case when it was passed fewer than two weeks earlier—is a major constitutional decision for this House, and it is absolutely right that we should be having this debate today, rather than the motion going through on the nod yesterday. I am delighted that the hon. Members for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) have enjoyed participating in this debate, having resisted the opportunity last night to insist on there being such a debate. They would have been quite happy for this issue to be swept under the carpet, but I think it is important for this House’s democracy to debate it openly. That is why last night I used the power, as an individual Back Bencher, to ensure that we had this debate today, and I have no regrets about that whatsoever.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I recognise that my hon. Friend is keen to make sure that Parliament has time to have its say, but we have had almost four and a half hours of debate on this issue already. Our constituents deserve a focus on delivering the promises we made to them on things that matter to them, rather than our spending time here trying to deny things, which would have the same outcome no matter what. How much time does he want to give—10 hours, five hours, 15 hours? When will it be enough?
Sir Christopher Chope
Should I express shock or outrage at what my hon. Friend has said, because clearly, in the time to which she refers, she did not apply her mind to the principal issue, which is that the Government encouraged everybody—including her, probably—to vote for a motion on 3 November, the motion was passed by resolution of this House, and the rescinding or changing of that motion is a matter for this House, rather than for the Executive and the Government? What happened on 4 November was that the Government used their power to usurp this House and basically said to it, “What you decided yesterday is no longer valid and of good effect.” This motion is so important because we cannot pass motions and then rescind them without proper debate, and that is what I am trying to concentrate on today. The process is absolutely fundamental to the issue of natural justice.
When I intervened on the Leader of the House, I referred to three of the issues that he had talked about in his introductory remarks on 3 November. He expressed concerns that had been raised with him about the lack of examination of witnesses in this case—and there were 17 such witnesses available to be examined. He also said that he was concerned about the interpretation of the rules relating to whistleblowing, which have been reinterpreted retrospectively and much more narrowly than many people would think was justified on the basis of the actual wording of those rules. Then there was the issue of the penalty that was recommended, because the Committee decided that it was an aggravating factor for our then right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire to have raised with it in evidence the impact that the inquiry and the commissioner’s behaviour had had on himself and his family. That was—
Sir Christopher Chope
No, I am not going to give way. [Interruption.] No, I am not going to give way.
Mr Speaker
Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to give way, he will give way. I think his slight indication was that he does not wish to give way to Mr Harper. [Interruption.] Well, whether he is right or wrong is totally different to the rules of the House.
Sir Christopher Chope
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand that some people find this rather an issue of sensitivity.
I raised a related aspect of this with the Leader of the House because a previous report of the Committee on Standards had decided, where colleagues had disputed the decision of the Commissioner for Standards, that that was, in itself, an aggravating factor in their penalty. That is completely at odds with the principles of natural justice in our country. In our country you can defend yourself in a forum—a court of law or an inquiry—and that cannot be regarded as an aggravating factor. If you admit your guilt, that can be a mitigating factor, but to defend yourself against charges cannot be regarded as an aggravating factor. The former right hon. Member for North Shropshire referred in his evidence to the Committee to the impact of the inquiry upon himself and his family. I cannot see how that could have been, in itself, an aggravating factor when it came to sentence. The Leader of the House referred to that issue on 3 November and I think it struck a chord with many of us.
It is so important that natural justice should be allowed to take its course and be applied in our proceedings, and that we should not allow ourselves to be pushed into positions of almost being subject to mob rule and mob justice. That is why I welcome this debate and the opportunity to hear people’s views about the—
Sir Christopher Chope
No. My right hon. Friend has plenty of time in which to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, and make his own points in his own way. I know that he has a different view from that which I have about these proceedings. He is entitled to that view; each of us is entitled to our own views. What we should be doing in this democracy is actually enabling those views to be heard, and I am delighted that this debate is facilitating just that.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I normally have to say that thing—there are all these things we have to say—“It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope)”. I am actually going to defend his position, and critique what he has said. My first critique is that I found the tone in which he spoke to one of his colleagues to be slightly unacceptable as a woman in these proceedings. However, as a woman in these proceedings, I have had call to find some of his tone problematic in the past, so nothing new there.
I love to turn up to these debates and have it out once again, but where I am going to defend the hon. Gentleman is that he is standing in this Chamber defending a position and being barracked for that position—I can understand why; I get it: people want this to go away and I can see why people in this House would want that—when it was the Government’s position 13 days ago. So it is slightly unusual, notwithstanding the fact that he would not take an intervention from the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) while saying that he liked debate. To be fair, it would never have been his position. It is all well and good barracking him and saying we should not be talking about it, but this was the Government’s position just weeks ago, and I think that is important to remember.
I want to go over a couple of things. The idea of natural justice seems to be incredibly in the eye of the beholder. As somebody who has worked in the justice sector for nearly two decades now, I find it something that is never ever said about victims. Victims are never asking for natural justice, one notes. Natural justice is terminology that always gets pulled out when people do not like the result of something that has happened, I find.
I feel that what happened in this case absolutely was natural justice. The right hon. Gentleman—sorry, Owen Paterson—was entitled all the way through to defend his case. The Leader of the House spoke earlier about his mind being clouded by the tragedy that had occurred. I have some sympathy for that, except that is not a mitigation ever offered to any of my constituents in immigration tribunals or welfare tribunals. Dreadful things that have happened to them would never be taken into account. It is difficult when the Government’s policy is to mitigate against only some people and to cloud their minds against only some people.
In this case, all the way through the Member was entitled to defend himself, and defend himself he did, considerably better than lots of Members in this House who do not have £100,000 contracts would have been able to do. Let’s not even get started on access to justice outside this House—welcome to almost every family court in the land, where people are defending themselves—but he was able to access legal representation all the way through. That is undeniable, and it was not just legal access. Let’s face it, Owen Paterson will have had considerably better access to law, silks and fancier lawyers than most people in this House, so let us not pretend that he was completely and utterly blindsided by this process and that it was not handled fairly, because it absolutely was.
I have some sympathy with the argument about appeals, and I am more than happy to take part in any debate about how that appeal system might work. My personal view is that the system used by the sexual harassment process that we set up, with judges sitting over it, is one that I would not mind seeing in place, although I have to say that people should be wary: the judges are very robust, they are very detailed and they cross-examine the evidence. In those cases, I have never once seen it come down on the side of the Member. In fact, there are former Members of the House who are no longer sitting here because of what the appeal said. Unfortunately, following the appeal in one of the cases, the Member still sits in here, regardless of the loss of members of staff from this place—that is the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts).
I want to say a tiny thing for the public about transparency and how these things work. I feel a little bit for the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). The way that these things work in this House usually is that the Government find a Back Bencher who has credibility and make her take a measure through—it is often a “her”—on behalf of the Executive, and that is what happened last time. She has been totally sold down the river and her credibility, which was good on these issues, has unfortunately been damaged by the Executive.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I had not intended to speak in this debate, but since I did not get the opportunity to intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), I will make a couple of very brief points. First, I fear he read a different report from the one I read. I read it in detail, and the Committee absolutely gave Mr Paterson the opportunity to present the evidence of his witnesses. That evidence was examined by the Committee and was in the report. The Committee decided for itself that it did not need to interview the witnesses, but it put their evidence transparently in the report.
The bit I really wanted to challenge my hon. Friend on was the personal tragedy and the impact on Mr Paterson, for which we all have sympathy. It is absolutely not true that the Committee did not consider it; it absolutely did. It is clearly in the report, and it was considered not as an aggravating factor, but as a mitigating factor when the Committee dealt with the punishment. The Chairman of the Committee has set out clearly the precedent for paid advocacy and the punishments meted out to former Members of this House. It was fairly clear to me, from what he set out, that Mr Paterson got a significant degree of leniency in the proposed penalty because of the personal tragedy. The Committee rightly reflected that in its deliberations. It tempered its punishment with mercy, which is a proper thing to do. I think this House would have accepted that, had Mr Paterson not taken the decision of his own accord to leave the House. That is all I wanted to say to put the record straight. I had not intended to do so, and I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I had not intended to speak in the debate, but I was prompted by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), because it became incredibly apparent to me and, I suspect, to Members from all parts of the House that had she been in charge, this chaos would never have happened. This chaos is the making entirely of one person: the Prime Minister. When the Leader of the House comes to the Dispatch Box and says, “The reason we made this mistake was because we had sympathy for Mr Paterson”, it is not credible, because what happened the very next day is that Cabinet Ministers were instructed by the Chief Whip or the Prime Minister to go out on the TV and defend it. It would never have happened under the previous Prime Minister. It need not be said, but it became apparent to me that both the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip were struggling to look at the right hon. Member for Maidenhead or my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire).
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is three weeks since the Standards Committee produced our report on the conduct of Owen Paterson. It detailed a catalogue of bad behaviour. The evidence was stark and compelling. He repeatedly engaged in paid lobbying. He peddled influence for his paying clients. He repeatedly used his parliamentary office to run a commercial enterprise. Every single MP I have spoken to who has read the report tells me he was guilty, yet here we are. If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again.
I confess I am still mystified why the Prime Minister decided to move heaven and earth to prevent Owen Paterson from being sanctioned. Today’s motion, however, is in precisely the words that I gave the Leader of the House last Monday, as I think he will confirm, and it is necessary, I am afraid, for two reasons. First, the motion carried on Wednesday 3 November set up an alternative standards Committee, to be chaired by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). I am told that the Prime Minister told Conservative Members at the time that this had been “squared off” with the Opposition. That was not true. Since not even the right hon. Member for Maldon wants to sit on the Committee, we probably ought to get rid of it.
Secondly, the motion of 3 November parked the question of whether Mr Paterson was guilty, which suggests that the House is uncertain what it thinks about paid lobbying. I hope that that is not the case, and I hope, if we have a unanimous decision this afternoon without a Division, that will prove to be the case. In effect, without this motion, both the Committee and the report are in limbo. I am not an expert on the theology of the Catholic Church, but I understand that the Catholic Church now believes that limbo does not exist, so we really ought to put these two issues beyond doubt.
I wish this could have been otherwise. Mr Paterson and his family must have been through hell over the past year since Rose Paterson took her own life. It is a matter of deep regret to me that the parliamentary shenanigans of the past three weeks can only have added to that misery. This House has done Mr Paterson and his family no favours. We should be ashamed of what has happened here.
Sadly, Mr Paterson’s was not the only catalogue of bad behaviour. As countless Conservative MPs have said to me—incidentally, I praise a lot of the new Conservative MPs, who have shown far greater insight over the past three weeks than some of their more long-standing colleagues—the way the Government and the Prime Minister have handled this matter has been shameful and has brought the House into disrepute. It was just wrong to delay the original motion, wrong to change the rules at the last minute of a disciplinary process for a named individual, wrong to whip Members on a standards report, wrong to call for the commissioner to resign, wrong to refuse to table this motion last week, wrong to try to get away with just taking this motion last night without debate—just plain wrong, wrong, wrong, and the Government know it.
I will respond to one point from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). The real aggravating point was not anything he has mentioned, but the fact that Mr Paterson endlessly and repeatedly said he would do the same again tomorrow. That was bound to keep on bringing the House into further disrepute, and of course we had to bear that in mind as an aggravating factor.
I hope it will be helpful if I say a few words about appeals. We on the Committee have been grappling with this for some time, and I expect we will be able to say more when we report formally to the House before Christmas. We are in the process of appointing a senior judicial figure to help us to think through all these issues, as I told the House last week.
It is wrong, however, to say, as several hon. Members have, that there is no appeal process now. There is. A Member can appeal the commissioner’s decision that there has been a breach of the rules. The Committee on Standards hears that appeal, with seven independent lay members and seven Members of this House. Unlike most appeal bodies, we are remarkably generous. We do not specify grounds for appeal; we effectively allow not just an appeal, but a general rehashing of all the arguments. We can also hear an appeal in writing and in person, unlike most courts, and often a Member chooses to do both, as Mr Paterson did. We honestly give every single Member a fair hearing. We do not always agree with the commissioner.
There are, however, some blurred lines here. We could tighten up the grounds for appeal, but I warn colleagues that that might not go down too well. We could constitute ourselves as two panels, as the independent expert panel does: one to hear the original decision and determine a sanction, another to hear an appeal. We could engage an outside figure to hear that final appeal, or we could ask the independent expert panel to do that. But that is not as simple as some might suggest. The corollary might be that the House would then have to take the sanction motion without debate or amendment, as it is required to do in sexual harassment cases.
I am, however, extremely reluctant to move from an inquisitorial system to an adversarial one, and I urge the House to oppose that. That would require everyone to be legally represented, which would benefit wealthy MPs over poorer MPs—unless legal aid is provided for MPs, when it is not now available in many other places. It would dramatically increase the cost of the proceedings and significantly extend the process. It would be disproportionate. It would not be any fairer to the Member or the complainant.
Some final points: The Daily Telegraph today reported a Government source as dismissing the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the adviser on the Ministerial Code as “bureaucrats” who should be ignored. I am glad that the Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) has apologised for calling for the commissioner to resign, though I suspect he was not freelancing at the time, but leadership in this field means backing the independent system, not seeking to undermine it.
As sure as eggs is eggs, there will be more cases before the commissioner and the Committee in the next few months, and I hope nobody will seek to undermine either of them. I pay tribute to both Kathryn Stone, the commissioner, and all of her team, who have worked tirelessly over these few weeks, despite some extreme bullying. That same source in The Daily Telegraph also said:
“Backroom talks between the parties over an MP appeals process have already begun”.
That is, I am afraid, completely untrue. There have been no approaches to the Opposition parties, to me as Chair of the Committee on Standards or to the Committee itself. It is untrue, and I hope that briefing will stop.
I hear talk of all sorts of proposals for how we should change the system, and I urge hon. Members to calm down a little. The past three weeks have been shameful for this House. We need a return to due process. The Committee will produce a report very soon, certainly before Christmas and hopefully even before Advent. All we have to do at Advent is wait a little.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, notwithstanding the practice of this House relating to questions already decided in the same Session, this House:
(1) rescinds the resolution and order of 3 November 2021 relating to the Third Report of the Committee on Standards (HC 797) and the appointment of a new select committee;
(2) approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards (HC 797); and
(3) notes that Mr Owen Paterson is no longer a Member of this House.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Tuesday 16th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2022 View all Finance Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 238 / Noes: 310 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 314 / Noes: 233 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
On Sunday, MPs across the House remembered all those who died in conflict. It is now 76 years on from the time we started to rebuild our country from the devastation of world war two. The bombs that rained down during that war caused enormous loss of life. They tore our cities apart. In London, air raids wrecked or razed to the ground some 116,000 buildings, and in Liverpool and Bristol tens of thousands of buildings were damaged or destroyed.
While the war left a mark on the nation that lasts to this day, those dark years were followed by a period of reconstruction and renewal. In 1951, the iconic Royal Festival Hall opened in London as the centrepiece and legacy of the Festival of Britain. In the 1960s, Liverpool built its extraordinary Metropolitan Cathedral, while the iconic Severn bridge was constructed near Bristol.
Today, we are living in very different times, and we have thankfully not experienced such devastation here again, but we share some parallels with our wartime predecessors. As we emerge from the pandemic, our cities’ buildings may remain intact, but jobs, families and livelihoods have been at risk, and some have been damaged by the worst economic shock in 300 years. It is right, therefore, that we too now rebuild and turn our attention to creating a better future for this country and its people. Last month, the Chancellor started that work. His Budget set out our plans for the stronger economy that will allow Britain to succeed: an economy of stronger growth, stronger employment and stronger public finances, with higher wages, high skills and rising productivity. This Finance Bill will achieve that.
Before I turn to the Bill’s main measures, I will talk about its context. Our economic situation has improved since the last Finance Bill. We have moved away from emergency support to focusing on our recovery, which is now well under way. In fact, the economy is expected to bounce back to its pre-covid levels by the turn of the year—earlier than was expected in March—while our economic plan to safeguard jobs, livelihoods and businesses has worked. As a result, we can now invest in better public services, in jobs and skills, and in levelling up the country so that we open opportunity to everyone everywhere.
However, we should not forget that debt is still at its highest level as a percentage of GDP since the early 1960s and is set to pass £1.3 trillion. While this level of borrowing is still affordable, it leaves us vulnerable if another crisis hits, so we must continue to create a stronger economy that can withstand financial shocks. That is why the Chancellor announced a new charter for budget responsibility, with two fiscal rules that will keep us on the right track.
I want to focus on three aspects of the Budget in this Finance Bill: support for people, support for businesses and growth, and some underlying aspects of fairness. This is a Government who put people first, and this Bill’s measures complement the wider action we took in the Budget to support individuals and working families right around the country. We have reduced the universal credit taper rate and increased the national living wage so that work really does pay. We have continued our fuel duty freeze, helping to lower the cost of everyday life. We have announced that public sector workers will receive fair and affordable pay rises across the whole spending review period.
This Bill will improve people’s lives by backing the businesses that generate jobs and growth. In March, we extended the temporary £1 million level of annual investment allowance on plant and machinery assets. The allowance was due to revert to its previous level of £200,000, but as the Chancellor said:
“Now is not the time to remove tax breaks on investment”.—[Official Report, 27 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 283.]
This Bill extends the £1 million level until the end of March 2023, encouraging firms to invest more and invest earlier.
While the changes to business rates that we announced in the Budget will encourage more firms to grow and invest, the Bill will also help the UK’s financial services industry became even more successful. In the March Budget, we said we would increase the corporation tax rate to 25% from 2023, for which we have now legislated. However, to make sure that our banks stay internationally competitive while still paying their fair share of tax, this Bill sets the bank surcharge rate at 3%. In addition, we are increasing the bank surcharge annual allowance from £25 million to £100 million, a move that will help smaller, challenger banks.
The Bill also supports another important industry—shipping. It does this by making our tonnage tax regime simpler and more competitive, and by rewarding companies that adopt the UK red ensign.
Finally, we should not forget that our cultural industries also contribute to our economic success. This Bill therefore extends the tax relief on museum and gallery exhibitions for another two years until the end of March 2024, and it doubles the tax relief for theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries until April 2023, to revert to the normal rate only in April 2024. This tax relief for culture is worth a quarter of a billion pounds.
Tax is of course central to our economic health and to funding the public services that make people’s lives better, but the way we collect tax must be fair and simple too, and the measures in this Bill will help us to achieve that. As Members will be aware, we are tackling the social care crisis with a new UK-wide 1.25% levy on national insurance contributions. This Bill will increase the tax rate on dividends by the same amount, so that those receiving this income will also contribute in line with employees and the self-employed.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Can the Minister tell the House just exactly how much of that national insurance increase is going to go to social care?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member will know that this has been set out. First, the money will go to the NHS, and then afterwards it will be going to social care. It is absolutely essential that we do that. £12 billion will be collected and will be going through to our social care services, as well as to the NHS.
Lucy Frazer
I will just carry on to my next point, which is that there will be an increase in the social care budget in the spending review period.
A fairer tax system also means tackling those who avoid paying their share. A new economic crime levy will help to fund measures that will prevent criminals from laundering money in the UK. It will apply to about 4,000 businesses and bring in £100 million. The Bill also contains tougher measures to prevent promoters from marketing tax avoidance schemes. In addition, it includes sanctions to tackle tobacco duty evasion, which costs the Exchequer an estimated £2.3 billion a year. The Bill also clamps down on electronic sales suppression, a form of tax evasion in which a business deliberately manipulates its electronic sales records to reduce its recorded turnover and corresponding tax liabilities.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am pleased to hear about the Government’s commitment to taking on those who make money by promoting tax avoidance schemes. One such scheme that has been on the go for a long time is the loan charge. Can the Minister give us an update on progress towards bringing to account not the thousands of small-time self-employed people who have been caught, but the big players in that scandal? How many people have actually been surcharged or prosecuted for promoting loan charge schemes?
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that question because I appreciate, since being in this role, that the loan charge is an issue that has affected many people across the country and that many MPs feel very strongly about. I have spent quite a considerable amount of time already talking about this issue not to only the chief executive officer of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, but to officials. I have also had the opportunity to meet HMRC officials who are dealing with the vulnerable people who may be subject to the loan charge and to ask questions about how they are treating them.
The hon. Member makes a really good point, because the real perpetrators in relation to the loan charge are those who offer these schemes and getting people on low pay into them. An issue I have raised directly with HMRC is how we can further prosecute and bring these people to justice. Unfortunately, I understand that many of them are located offshore, but we will be doing everything we can to ensure that those who are responsible for promoting this are brought to justice.
This Bill deals with those who try to get out of paying tax, but it also creates a simpler and easier system. Its measures make capital gains tax easier to navigate, doubling the window for reporting and for paying CGT on residential property from 30 days to 60 days. This will give people longer to work out what they owe and make it less likely that they will make a mistake. For businesses, we are creating a simpler tax system through reforms to basis periods, leading to a simpler, fairer and more transparent set of rules for the allocation of trading income to tax years.
There is no doubt that the pandemic has cast a long shadow over this country and our finances, but just as our wartime predecessors rebuilt from the blitz, now is the time to open a new chapter in our national story—one of economic growth and renewal, and with it, transformed lives.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned fairness a few times, and also the challenges facing the country. Why have her Government decided to give banks a reduction in the surcharge taxes they pay, which will cost the taxpayer £1 billion a year, when increasing numbers of our constituents are going hungry because of the failure to support them in the challenges they have faced over the last 18 months?
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful for the opportunity to answer that question, because the hon. Lady talked about a reduction in the amount banks are paying but that is not accurate: the banks will actually be paying a higher rate than previously. The hon. Lady might have noted that I referenced in my speech the fact that corporation tax was going up to 25%, and banks will be paying a higher rate than everybody else, who will be paying 25%; the banks will now be paying 28%, not the 27% they are currently paying. We are also ensuring that we have a competitive operating environment for these banks, because the banking sector not only contributes to the economy but employs 1 million people.[Official Report, 19 November 2021, Vol. 703, c. 5MC.]
The hon. Lady also said people were going hungry, but it is important to recognise what this Finance Bill and Budget do for those on the lowest pay. I have talked about the universal credit taper rate, bringing in an additional £1,000 for those in work who will benefit from it. We have also increased the national living wage, which will benefit people by an average of £1,000. There are a number of other measures, too, that benefit people who are not in work.
Rushanara Ali
But the reality is that there has been a UC cut, and the taper rate reduction, which is welcome, will help only a third of the 6 million affected. What about the 4 million others? This is not a fair Budget and it is wrong for this Government to treat the British people in this way given what they have faced in the pandemic over the last 18 months.
Lucy Frazer
The UC taper sends out a message that it is important to get into work and that work pays. We on the Government side of the House believe that the way to help people is to get them into work and into good jobs so they can support themselves, and we have a number of schemes to help those on UC to get into work. It is also important that when they are in work, they are paid well for it.
The hon. Lady also asked about those who are not in work, and I remind her of all the measures we have put in place for them, because not everybody can work. Before the Budget the Chancellor announced half a billion pounds for the most vulnerable—millions of vulnerable people will benefit from that. There are also more than 2 million people benefiting from the warm home discount and all the people who benefit from the council tax rebates we help them with. So it is right that we support the most vulnerable, but the UC credit taper is about making work pay.
We will invest in people, in businesses and in public services, just as we are doing with the 40 new hospitals, the 20,000 new police officers and the extra money we are providing to schools.
Clive Efford
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; she is being very generous. It is important that we nail down the issue of where the national insurance increase is going. The Minister said earlier that it was going to the NHS and then it was going into social care, but it cannot be spent twice, so when will that money be switched, and what level of cuts will the NHS face then in order to shift that money into social care?
Lucy Frazer
I find it disappointing when people talk about cuts when actually there is significant investment—record amounts—going into the NHS. This Budget highlighted not just £5 billion for the diagnostic centres the Department of Health and Social Care will be operating around the country, but £9 billion for covid support, and the hon. Gentleman will know that £36 billion was put into the NHS before that—a significant sum. So it is dangerous when people talk inappropriately about cuts. There are not any cuts; this is investment going into the NHS.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
One concern many have about the national insurance increase is that there is an understanding about how much that will raise but no understanding whatsoever about how much will eventually make it through the NHS to social care in England. I am sorry to say that leads many of us to think the Government might not have much of a plan for how they are going to use it first in the NHS and then to benefit service users in the social care sector. Will the Minister have another go at helping those of us with that mindset to understand?
Lucy Frazer
The Government have been very clear that the money will first go to the NHS; there is a significant number of backlogs that we need to tackle and it is important that people can get to see their GP so therefore it is essential that that £13 billion is right now going to the NHS. But we have been clear about this: we are the first Government to tackle the issue of social care—the first Government to put it on the table and put in a plan to raise the money to tackle the social care issue.
As I said at the outset, a number of cities were devasted by the second world war, and I return to my analogy. In London, £65 million is going from the first round of the levelling-up fund to local infrastructure projects to improve everyday life; in Liverpool and the wider north-west, that figure stands at £232 million; separately, in Bristol and the west of England, we are providing £540 million over five years to transform local transport networks.
At the same time, we will never forget our responsibility to strengthen the public finances. The tax changes in this Bill will allow us to achieve all these things, and for those reasons I commend it to the House.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move the amendment in my name and those of hon. and right hon. Friends including the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves):
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Finance (No. 2) Bill because it does nothing to help people who are struggling with the rising costs of living, who are being hit by the cut to universal credit, or who are facing a rise in National Insurance Contributions and a freeze in the Income Tax Personal Allowance from next April, because it nonetheless cuts taxes for banking companies and derives from a Budget that will see the tax burden rise to its highest level in 70 years and announced cuts in air passenger duty for UK domestic flights, and because it fails to set out a plan to grow the UK’s economy, fundamentally reform business rates, and create better jobs for the future.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to set out the view of the Opposition on the Second Reading of the Bill, which comes at a time when people across the UK are seeing the cost of living, from electricity to food prices, going up and up; when businesses are trying to get back on their feet after 18 months of struggle; and when our country needs leadership to build a new net zero economy with jobs for the future. Yet let us look at what the Government are doing: putting up taxes on working people while cutting them for banks; giving up on fundamental reforms to business rates that would give our high streets the backing they need; and failing to invest in the new jobs of the future that would turn the challenge of net zero into an opportunity for our country’s economy to grow.
The truth is the Tories will never put working people first. I stood here two months ago arguing that the Government were wrong to hike up taxes on working people with their national insurance rise when those with the broadest shoulders should be paying more, and yet what we have before us today is a tax cut for banks. That tells us everything we need to know about the Tories when in power. They do not seem to care whether something is fair for people in this country, except of course when they think something is unfair to one of their own, and then they simply change the rules to suit themselves. The British people are seeing through the Government’s approach: people are seeing that this Government are more concerned with protecting themselves than with protecting the economy and people’s quality of life.
The foundation of any Government’s approach to the economy must be a plan for growth. With a growing economy, we have the chance to create new jobs with better wages and conditions in every part of the country, but without growth it gets ever harder to meet the challenges we face. Let us look at the record of this Government. As the shadow Chancellor my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West told the Chancellor right after the Budget, it is clear what direction we are going in under the Conservatives. In the first decade of this century, despite the financial crisis, Labour grew the economy by 2.3% a year. In the last decade to 2019, however, even before the pandemic, the Tories grew the economy at just 1.8% a year. In the future, things look even worse. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that by the end of this Parliament the UK economy will be growing by just 1.3% a year. This low growth is hitting people in their pockets: data from the Office for National Statistics show that average yearly wage growth has fallen from 1.6% in the decade to 2010 to 0.5% in the decade since 2010. We do not have much to look forward to, either, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies saying that over the next five years, real household disposable income is expected to grow by just 0.8% a year, well below the historical average.
Low growth is becoming a hallmark of the Tories in power. What they fail to realise is that with the right investment, the challenges we face can become opportunities for growth. In no part of our lives is that more evident than our response to climate change. Labour has said that we would invest an additional £28 billion every year for the rest of this decade in transforming our economy—from new jobs building batteries for electric vehicles, to manufacturing and maintaining wind turbines, and finally insulating our homes to get energy bills down. With investment on the scale we need, and with Labour’s pledge to buy, make and sell more in Britain, we would turn an urgent, critical response to the climate emergency into an opportunity for new jobs with decent pay and conditions in every part of our country.
In every part of our country, too, we see shops and high streets struggling to get back on their feet after the last 18 months. We should turn their urgent need for support into a chance to fundamentally overhaul the system of business rates, which has had its day. Business on high streets across the country know that the business rates system is broken and that fundamental change is long overdue. We know that, too, which is why we have pledged to scrap business rates and replace them with a new system of business taxation fit for the 21st century, which would incentivise investment, reward businesses moving into empty premises and encourage environmental improvements. Crucially, under our new system, no public services or local authorities would lose out, and online businesses would pay a fairer share.
We thought the Conservatives also knew that change on that scale was needed. We thought they might understand the need for an overhaul of the system, as their 2019 manifesto promised to reduce business rates through
“a fundamental review of the system.”
We thought they might even have meant it: in 2020, the Treasury began a consultation on what it said would be the fundamental review that its Ministers had promised. Yet in last month’s Budget, the Chancellor decided to ditch any prospect of fundamental reform under this Government.
Measures in the Budget for next year may be welcome, but no matter how the Chancellor tries to spin it, the promise of fundamental reform from this Government is over. As the chief executive of the British Retail Consortium put it, what the Government have offered
“falls far short of the truly fundamental reform that is needed and was promised”.
That manifesto promise of a fundamental reform of business rates has been broken, just as the promise not to raise national insurance was broken a month before.
We have a Government who are breaking their promises and failing to set out a plan to grow the UK’s economy and create better jobs for the future. Growing our economy would mean more jobs and higher tax revenues to invest in public services, but if the UK economy had grown at the same rate as other advanced economies over the last decade, we could have had £30 billion more to invest in public services without needing to raise taxes. Yet under the Tories, lower growth means that taxes need to go up. Last month’s Budget saw taxation rise to its highest level for 70 years.
Crucially, the decisions about who should shoulder the burden of tax rises tell us everything we need to know about the Tories when they are in power. The Tories are making life harder for half the population through their personal allowance freeze, for all working people through their national insurance tax rise, and for struggling families through their cut to universal credit, yet they are making life easier for bankers by cutting taxes on banking companies, and for frequent flyers by cutting air passenger duty on domestic flights. A banker flying between London and Leeds is getting a double tax cut, but someone working in the airport where that flight lands is getting a double tax rise.
Rushanara Ali
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is scandalous that the Government have only just agreed to restore schools expenditure to its 2010 level, despite a shortfall of £10 billion for catch-up notwithstanding requests from the former catch-up tsar? If we are serious about improving productivity in this country, we need to invest in our kids and in skills. Government expenditure falls far too short, and that will damage the future of our economy.
James Murray
As my hon. Friend rightly points out, investing in education is critical to the future of our country and the next generation. We heard the Minister say how uncomfortable she feels talking about cuts, but that is the reality of 11 years of Conservative government. No matter how they try to massage the announcements they are making now, the truth is that if we compare 2021 with 2010, we can see the impact that 11 years of the Tories has had on our public services.
At a time when working people are facing rising prices and flatlining wages, it shows the Tories’ true colours that they are prioritising a tax cut for bankers. To rub salt in the wound, as the IFS has pointed out, the cut in air passenger duty will flow through the UK emissions trading scheme and push up electricity prices at home. It was shocking to hear the Chancellor announce a cut in air passenger duty just days before COP26, and it is shocking that his tax cut for banks will cost the public finances £1 billion a year by the end of this Parliament.
That cut will see the corporation tax surcharge for banking companies slashed from 8% to 3%, with the allowance for the charge raised from £25 million to £100 million. It is worth reminding ourselves why that sector-specific tax was first introduced. As the policy paper published alongside the Budget—I am sure the Minister has read it—sets out clearly, the charge has been levied on banks to reflect
“the risks that they pose to the UK financial system and wider economy”
and to recognise
“the costs arising from the financial crisis.”
When the surcharge was introduced 10 years ago, in the wake of the financial crisis, the Government at the time seemed to recognise that banks had an implicit state guarantee due to their central position in the UK economy, and that that guarantee should be underpinned by greater tax contributions. Yet, as Tax Justice has pointed out, the Office for Budget Responsibility found in 2019 that £27 billion of Government expenditure on bailing out the banks was still outstanding. It seems that the Government are determined to push ahead with a cut to the surcharge, despite the fact that it will not even have fully repaid the public money spent on banks during the financial crisis, let alone provided any insurance against a future crash. We will question Ministers on that further in Committee.
We will also use that chance to press Ministers on other parts of the Bill, including those that introduce the residential property developer tax and measures relating to money laundering and tax avoidance. We support the principle behind the residential property developer tax, which will be levied on the largest developers in the residential property sector. It is right that those responsible for putting dangerous materials on buildings should pay towards the very significant costs of removing unsafe cladding, but it would be a mistake to assume that levying that tax alone will mean that the cladding scandal will in any way come to an end.
The tax is expected to raise £2 billion over 10 years, yet the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has estimated that addressing all fire safety defects in every high-rise or high-risk residential building could cost up to £15 billion. What is more, extreme pressures on labour and materials mean that the cost of fire safety works could rise significantly, all but wiping out the money raised from the new tax proposed in the Bill.
The bottom line is that leaseholders living in buildings with potential fire risks and facing huge remediation costs need to know how those costs will be met in full and that the necessary work will be done without delay. There are plenty of people involved in this scandal who should be paying to fix it, but leaseholders are absolutely not among them.
We also support the principle behind the economic crime levy to raise money from the anti-money laundering regulated sector to pay for measures in the economic crime plan to help tackle money laundering. As the director of the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies has said, a
“key challenge for the UK Government’s response to financial crime is a lack of investment in capabilities to respond to its policy ambition.”
We hope that the funding from the levy will go some way towards increasing the capacity in government to tackle economic crime, although we will press Ministers on whether it is enough.
Peter Grant
Does the shadow Minister agree that, as part of the drive to deal with money laundering, there is also a need for significantly greater transparency so that the people who buy up huge swathes of property in London, for example, are openly identified and any illegal money that has been laundered in that way is much harder to hide?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Alongside funding, of course, there are also changes to the law that would strengthen the UK’s ability to fight economic crime. Top of the list must be putting in place a public register of the beneficial owners of overseas entities that own UK property. Such a register would bring much needed transparency to the overseas ownership of UK property and help to stop the use of UK property for money laundering.
So, where is the register? In 2016, Prime Minister David Cameron first announced plans to make it a reality. In 2017, the “National Risk Assessment of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing” confirmed that property continued to be an attractive vehicle for criminal investment, particularly high-end money laundering. In 2018, a draft Bill to set up a register of overseas entities was published. In 2019, a Joint Committee of MPs and Lords published their pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and the Government published their response. In that response, published in July 2019, the Minister responsible, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), said:
“Knowing who ultimately owns and controls a company is an important part of the global fight against corruption, money laundering and terrorist financing.”
We agree. The Minister committed to
“turn this Bill into an Act, and to deliver an operational register in 2021.”
However, since that Government response was published in July 2019—and since, as it happens, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) became Prime Minister, at the end of that very month—the desire to see the register put into place seems to have lost its energy.
Ministers are legally required by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to report to Parliament annually on the progress that has been made toward putting such a register in place. In 2020, a ministerial statement was indeed published, but any commitment to the register being operational by 2021 had by then been dropped. This year’s ministerial statement, published on 2 November, barely mentioned the register, arguing:
“The overseas entities register is one of a number of proposed corporate transparency reforms”.
The statement focused mainly on other changes and, in fact, barely mentioned the register, ending with that dreaded phrase:
“The Government intends to introduce legislation to Parliament as soon as parliamentary time allows.”
It is astonishing that the Government feel that the need for the register is becoming less urgent. The Pandora papers confirmed how overseas shell companies secretly buy up luxury property in the UK, and how much transparency is needed to help to tackle money laundering.
What are we meant to conclude from the fact that the appointment of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) as Prime Minister in July 2019 coincided perfectly with a change in direction by the Conservatives away from a commitment to make transparent the ownership of overseas companies buying up UK property? What could possibly be the connection between overseas individuals investing in UK property through anonymous companies and the current occupant of 10 Downing Street? Why on earth would anyone in Government not want to introduce the transparency that their own colleagues have said in the past is crucial to tackling high-end money laundering?
I am sure that later in the consideration of the Bill, we will return to the matter of anti-money laundering. At later stages, we will also consider the effectiveness of measures in the Bill to tackle tax avoidance, as that is an important matter for us and the public. In the Opposition, we have long been pushing for the Government to do more to tackle tax avoidance, and while any action on that is welcome, including the measures in the Bill, we do not believe they go far enough. Crucially, as well as the regulations that are needed, the Government must invest in the resources that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs needs to tackle the problem effectively.
The Budget papers confirm that HMRC is set to receive a
“£0.9 billion cash increase over the Parliament”.
However, as TaxWatch has pointed out,
“the vast majority of this will not go towards tackling tax fraud, but rather to deal with the additional complexities surrounding the UK’s departure from the European Union.”
We know that effective investment in tackling tax avoidance can bring in much more than is spent, so it is crucial to make sure that that is not ignored by the Government. We will return to this important matter in later stages of the Bill. We will return to that point because the principle at the heart of our tax system must be that everyone plays by the rules and pays their fair share. That principle needs to be stated and supported, as under this Government, with this Budget and this Finance Bill, our country is moving further and further away from that ideal.
Labour’s vision of the economy is this: invest in good modern jobs with decent pay and conditions in every part of the country; support small businesses and high streets from being undercut by large multinationals who do not pay their fair share of tax; and buy, make and sell more in the UK to use every lever we have to support British industries to succeed. That is how we begin to rebuild and strengthen our economy after a decade of low growth, with no end in sight. That is how we make sure people have more money in their pockets for them and their families, and how we increase tax revenues to invest in public services.
But that is not what we are getting from this Government. The low growth they are responsible for means that taxes have had to go up. Faced with a choice of which taxes to raise, the Tories have shown the British people their true colours. Millions of families across the country are already being hit by the Tories’ decision to cut universal credit. From next April, working people across the country will pay more, as their income tax personal allowance is frozen and their national insurance contributions are hiked up. Yet from the April that follows, banks will see the tax they have paid since the financial crisis cut by £1 billion a year by the end of this Parliament. That is the choice the Tories have made: taxes on working people will go up, while taxes on banks will be cut. For people who are working hard but finding things tough, the Tories have nothing to offer except a tax rise.
Fairness is the one of most British values there is, yet it is one this Government just do not get. The Tories are spending all their time protecting themselves, when they should be looking out for the British people. Labour would grow the economy. We would invest in the future. We would make sure working people were never again the first to feel the brunt of tax rises that this Tory Government are forcing on their shoulders.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
In this place we often focus on things that can be measured. We talk about money and how it can change the quality of life of our constituents. All too often, however, we underestimate the value of the web of community ties that link us all together. After family, certainly in the communities I represent, it is the community bonds, the web of community ties linking us all together, that are so important in improving the quality of life of each and every one of us.
In Broadland, for example, the largely rural area I have the honour to represent—I know everyone here represents a different type of community—there are community ties such as the active village hall committee, the active church and other faith groups, and organisations such as gardening clubs and amateur dramatics societies. Very important among that list is also the local pub. Those organisations, taken together, are absolutely vital in bringing people together. It is how we create our support networks outside the house or flat in which we live. Covid presented really serious mental health challenges to societies and communities. In my communities, people supported each other, stepped up and got more involved. They got to know their neighbours and they came out of lockdown in a stronger place, not a weaker place.
I want to focus on those really meaningful ties that are not simply economic. I saw a very good example of that last Thursday night, when I was in the village of Rackheath. I had been to the community council meeting, which had finished—Members will be all too familiar with this—sometime after 9 o’clock. I had not had anything to eat, so I went into the Sole and Heel pub to see if I could be served a late supper. Unfortunately, the kitchen had closed at 9 o’clock—so, not a great example on that occasion—but what I noticed when I opened the door was that the pub was full. The pub was full of the local community, with neighbours talking to neighbours at the heart of their community, bringing people together. In Broadland, those kinds of pubs support 1,600 jobs and contribute £46 million to the local community.
It is in that context that I absolutely welcome the announcement in the Budget on draught relief. The proposal will reduce duty on draught beer by 5%. In cider terms, that would be the biggest reduction in duty since 1923. In terms of beer, I understand it is the biggest single reduction in duty for the past 50 years. What impact will that have? It will be a £100 million a year support per annum for our local pubs. For “local pubs”, I think we should read “our local communities”. That will go a long way towards helping to stop the really serious decline that we have seen over the past 20 years in the trade. Since 2000, there has been a 22% reduction in the number of pubs in this country. That is more than 14,000 establishments, and for that, I think of all the community interactions that no longer take place; of all the neighbours who are no longer being brought together in the convivial atmosphere of the village or town pub. That has resulted in real damage to the strength of our communities, and we are here to support our communities.
So without hesitation I welcome this Government’s support for communities in relation to pubs and to the other sectors that bring communities together, including museums and artistic establishments, which have already received some £850 million of support. That goes a long way towards supporting our communities and making them stronger for the future.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak on Second Reading of the second Finance Bill of the year. I welcome the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to her place, although I feel obliged to express my sadness that I will not spend the next few weeks in the company of the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who has just left the Chamber. I am sure that he will not miss my constant references to Scottish limited partnerships, but I put the new Minister on notice that I expect her to be the one to fix that issue once and for all.
We on the Scottish National party Benches will of course propose worthy amendments—that will get voted down and ignored—in trying to make the very best of this flawed Finance Bill process, as the UK’s horribly complex tax system obtains yet another layer. I call again for the Finance Bill Committee to be allowed to take evidence. It remains baffling to me that although all the other legislative Committees in this place take expert evidence, the one that will directly affect the lives of everyone and every business in the country does not. That must change.
If the Finance Bill Committee took evidence, perhaps the UK Government would make fewer mistakes. Parts of the Bill correct oversights and errors, such as clause 83 and schedule 11 concerning the plastic packaging tax, about which I raised concerns in the passage of the previous Finance Bill. That measure is due to come into force in April next year, but the explanatory notes state that the changes in this Bill are
“to ensure that the tax…meets”
previously “announced policy objectives” and “works as intended”—well, I hae ma doots. I note that there are also measures to deal finally with the issue of second-hand cars in Northern Ireland—another bit of Brexit red tape that was not written on the side of the bus.
There is no doubt that we are facing a cost-of-living crisis and this Finance Bill provided the biggest possible opportunity for the Government to improve the lives of people across the UK. Instead, however, we see in schedule 6 that the Chancellor has seized the opportunity not to redistribute wealth, but to cut taxes for his banker pals, paid for by slashing universal credit, increasing national insurance and scrapping the pensions triple lock.
Ministers are keen to try to claim that the minimum wage is, in some way, a living wage, but it is not. This week is Living Wage Week and the real living wage rate has risen from £9.50 to £9.90 and to £11.05 in the city of London from today, so the UK Government proposals do not even keep pace with the real living wage, based on the cost of living.
I am proud that I have lots of real living wage employers in my constituency, because they see the benefit to their employees of paying a fair wage—they retain staff better and those staff are happier in their work—and they are right across a full range of sectors. There are 2,400 living wage employers in Scotland, including, in my constituency, Bike for Good, Pure Spa, Thenue housing association and a club that has obtained legendary status in the past couple of weeks: Firewater, on Sauchiehall Street. All of them pay their staff a fair wage and do their bit. I encourage the Government to become a living wage employer with the real living wage, because it would help so many people if they took a lead on that, as the Scottish Government and local authorities in Scotland have done.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on campaigning for a fair wage for all, regardless of age. Will she join me on calling on the Government to extend that pay equality to apprentices? We have seen that with such things as the business pledge in Scotland, but unfortunately, this Government continue to think that apprentices can be paid less than £4 an hour, which is absolutely shocking.
Alison Thewliss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point that out. I do not know how the Government think that apprentices are supposed to live and pay their bills on the meagre wages set as their minimum wage. In fact, through the years of this Tory Government and since Labour brought in the minimum wage, the rate between the lowest-paid—those youngest workers entitled to the minimum wage—and those at the highest end of that age distribution has increased. That gap is growing wider and wider every single year, and it is a scandal, frankly, that people are being discriminated against solely on the basis of age. The Government should put that right.
It is a grim time for many people in this country and things are not optimistic for many businesses either. As the Minister mentioned, the March Budget gave notice on increasing corporation tax and extended the annual investment allowance until the end of March 2023. These measures, however, come in the context of a national insurance hike—a tax on jobs—that the Federation of Small Businesses estimates might have a 7% marginal rate for some. This should have been scrapped and the employment allowance increased, if the Chancellor was serious about helping business owners and employees.
Hospitality and tourism firms, having been hit the hardest during the pandemic, will not retain their 12.5% VAT rate beyond March. Many did not benefit at all from the reduced rate during the pandemic, because they were not able to trade, and to hike VAT back up to 20% just as the tourist season begins next year seems absolutely daft. The UK Government seem to be playing catch-up with Scotland. The Chancellor’s plan to cut hospitality and business rates next year is less than what they are offering now and far below the 100% relief that the Scottish Government are already offering to those businesses this financial year. That is in addition to the hugely successful small business bonus scheme, which takes many businesses out of business rates altogether.
The tax reliefs in clauses 16 to 22 for businesses in the culture and arts sector that have struggled so much in the past year are welcome, but keeping the VAT reduction could provide an incentive to get people back through the doors of our galleries, theatres, music venues and funfairs.
My SNP colleagues and I have long argued in this House that more should be done to tackle economic crime and I was interested to see some measures in the Finance Bill that deal with this area of policy. Part 3 provides a framework for the Government to issue a new tax to tackle economic crime. This UK Tory Government have failed time and again to tackle tax avoidance and economic crimes—that is not a matter entirely of inadequate legislation or resources, but of woefully poor enforcement.
Under the plans set out in the Bill, all undertakings that fall under money-laundering regulations and have a revenue of over £10.2 million will be subject to the new economic crime levy. Although I support the broad principles, I have some concerns about how this will work in practice, because placing more of a burden on businesses might not exactly have the desired effect. The Law Society of England and Wales has stated its opposition to the levy, stating that it is “an additional tax” on anti-money laundering regulators and against the “polluter pays” principle. The Association of British Insurers has concerns that insurance firms, a very low risk area for money laundering, may be disproportionately hit by the measure, which could result in reducing access to insurance for vulnerable consumers. This is another area where more evidence needs to be taken to be sure that the intended effect of the Government’s measures is actually what transpires.
The Treasury Committee, which I am proud to sit on, has taken a lot of evidence in our inquiry on financial crime and it would be wise of the Government to take heed of that before progressing further with this measure. It would also be useful to know the Government’s full timetable and resourcing plan for Companies House reform. By tightening up company registration, giving Companies House AML responsibilities—as they should have—increasing the comically low fee for company registration and actually enforcing their own laws, the Government could bring in much more money and lose less of it through the complex schemes that Companies House currently facilitates.
When I asked the small business Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully)—in a written parliamentary question recently how much money has been raised by fines on Scottish limited partnerships that have not registered a person of significant control in the past three years, I received a response that stated that one fine had been levied in 2020-21. One fine—is that it? The last time I asked, in March last year, 948 SLPs had not filed PSC information by 31 January 2020. That figure was 2,019 in January 2019 and 7,078 in January 2018. Ministers may claim that this looks like an improving picture, but what is more likely to be happening is that people are moving those business around to similar structures in Ireland or into other vehicles such as trusts. To be clear, Companies House rules state:
“Anyone who does not respond to…notices within one calendar month, or gives false information, commits a criminal offence. They could receive a 2 year prison sentence, a fine or both.”
As far as I can establish, none of the firms that fell foul of the law was fined, apart from one, and no one got the jail. I ask again: how much money are the UK Government forgoing by not enforcing their own rules? What is the damage to our reputation, and to Scotland’s reputation, from being associated with money laundering and criminality that this UK Tory Government are failing to prevent?
The SNP is calling for a root-and-branch review of the tax system, which is much too complex and has too many places to hide and move things around. The UK Government have not confirmed whether any of the money raised by their proposed tax will be used to tackle tax avoidance. I would welcome some clarity on that point today.
Part 5 contains provisions to tackle tax avoidance, which is an issue that I have raised again and again, so I am pleased to see that some limited steps are being taken. The Bill will give HMRC powers to publish information on individuals who promote tax avoidance schemes. We support that approach in principle, but I note the concerns that the Chartered Institute of Taxation has raised about the drafting. HMRC says that it is targeting “the most egregious promoters” who flout the rules, but CIOT is concerned that the definitions of “promoter”, “relevant proposal”, “relevant arrangements” and “connected person” set a low bar.
The Bill’s wording also extends considerable latitude to HMRC officers: an authorised officer need only “suspect” that a scheme falls within the definition for people to be publicly named and shamed. I have constituents who have been named and shamed under minimum wage regulations and who have found it very difficult to challenge that and recover their reputation.
CIOT is also concerned that in future HMRC could use the measure more widely than is being proposed. I appreciate that the Bill makes provision for HMRC to retract and amend published information that has been shown to be incorrect, but it would be much better if we could have some assurances that it will get it right the first time, and some assurances about how the scheme will be resourced.
Lastly, I want to speak about an issue that has been literally close to home in the past few weeks. The eyes of the world have been on my constituency in Glasgow Central as it hosted the COP26 summit on climate change. The summit was an opportunity for the Government to show global leadership and grasp the opportunities that a green economy can provide, but the reality is that the only thing green about the Bill is the paper it is printed on. The Government’s ambivalence towards a just transition is writ right through it.
We need a comprehensive plan that understands the impact of our taxation choices on our emissions—a green OBR, perhaps, to hold this Government to account. The Government have given the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England responsibilities in that area, but are taking none themselves in the Bill. Nowhere is that clearer than in the cut to domestic air passenger duty, which the Red Book says will lose the Government £30 million to £35 million a year in revenue. People do not have many options when they fly long-haul—despite what the Proclaimers say, few people would walk 500 miles and walk 500 more—but within these islands they do have the choice between getting on a plane and getting on a train. It is already much, much cheaper to fly in many circumstances. Cutting APD while allowing train fares to rise again and again is absolutely no way to incentivise people to take more climate-friendly options.
The Bill makes provision for global shipping companies to receive tax breaks for flying the red ensign. Tonnage tax is a complicated scheme that allows companies to disregard profits for tax purposes, creating a very low-tax environment. Would it not have been better to link tax breaks to emissions rather than to waving the British flag, to incentivise the green technologies required to transform shipping, and to take a lead on the issue?
Scotland is delivering action to secure a net zero and climate-resilient future in a way that is fair and just for everyone. We are committed to a just transition to net zero by 2045, with an ambitious interim target of a 75% reduction by 2030. The Bill’s purpose allegedly covers delivery on the commitments made in the 2020 White Paper on energy and the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, contributing to the Government meeting their legally binding obligations to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but in reality there is very little in it to help Scotland to achieve our climate change goals. Indeed, in many ways it holds us back.
There is no reversal of the decision to scrap investment in a carbon capture and storage facility in the north-east of Scotland; it looks as if that investment will instead go to Tory marginals in the red wall. That is the worst type of pork barrel politics. The Acorn project at St Fergus would have been a world-leading example of a just transition project, but once again the people of Scotland have been let down by the Tories at Westminster. Neither is there any commitment to help to develop emerging wave technologies, which might well move abroad without the correct support, and there are no measures in the Bill to reform the transmission charging scheme, which costs wind farms in Scotland to plug into the grid while it pays companies in the south-east of England to connect. When I asked the Chancellor about that recently, I got blank looks and blah blah blah in return.
The Bill makes clear once again the UK Government’s lack of interest in Scotland’s commitment to tackling climate change. Schedule 14 makes provision to change VAT rates for freeports; it is disappointing to see no commitment to the fair work conditions and net zero ambitions put forward by the Scottish Government for a green port scheme. Scottish Ministers have engaged in good faith to try to improve a UK Government policy while further progressing our climate change goals: the Scottish Government wanted to take the freeport policy and augment it to work in the best interests of workers and the environment. Who could argue with that, other than Government Members? The Scottish Government have been ignored and sidelined by this UK Government. It is just not good enough.
This UK Tory Government cannot be trusted to act in the interests of Scotland. I look forward to the day when there is a Government who can and will act in those interests, using the levers of taxation powers to benefit our people, make our businesses grow and protect our environment for the future. Only independence can give Scotland that Government.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Bill and the Budget that it follows do little to respond to the scale of the challenges facing our country, many of which have been brought into sharp focus by how the coronavirus pandemic has hit our society, not to mention the long-term hit on our gross domestic product because of Brexit—a 4% hit to the economy, on top of a 2% hit from the pandemic, as forecast by the Government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility.
Nor does the Bill respond to the climate emergency, as hon. Members have pointed out. Despite the fact that the UK has just hosted the COP26 summit in Glasgow, the Government have no plan for growth. Growth would put more money in people’s pockets and increase tax revenues, but what we are seeing is a low-growth, high-taxes approach, meaning a greater burden on working people because of the Budget.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does she agree that the lack of stimulus from the Government contrasts with what is happening in the US? The Government seem to be making the same mistakes as after the financial crash in 2008-09.
Rushanara Ali
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The US has already returned to pre-pandemic levels of growth, as have a number of European countries, whereas the UK is still playing catch-up. We need to learn lessons from what happened after the global financial crisis so that we can get growth back up to the level that we need.
The UK faces the additional challenge of making up for the long-term hit on our economy as a result of the trade that we are losing because of our exit from the European Union. Given that we have exited the European Union, we need to know how the Government will make up for the 4% hit on our GDP in the long term, alongside the 2% hit that I mentioned.
Under this Government, taxes will reach their highest level since the Clement Attlee Government in the post-war era. Clement Attlee had a lot to show for the increase: the national health service, our education system and the welfare state, much of which we have benefited from for generations and continue to benefit from. This Government have poor living standards, a poor economic outlook and weak economic growth to show for their tax rises. While the pockets of working people are being hit, this Bill, shockingly, allows a tax cut for banks. It cuts the surcharge on their profits from 2023, which, as I mentioned earlier, will cost taxpayers £1 billion a year. Nowhere is it clearer where this Government’s priorities lie, and where they think the tax burden should lie: the Bill gives a tax rise to workers and tax cuts to the banks.
The Government have wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money by brazenly giving out PPE contracts to a number of people who are linked to the Conservative party. As the National Audit Office has pointed out, a significant amount of money has been wasted and a “high-priority” channel was provided for Government contracts linked to people in Government and they were 10 times more likely to be successful. Some estimates suggest that nearly £2 billion of contracts went to people with links to the Conservative party.
According to the Public Accounts Committee, the test and trace scheme, which cost billions of pounds, has not shown a benefit commensurate with the amount of money spent. If the Government had spent that money wisely, many billions would not have been wasted on crony contracts, and some of the money could have been spent on dealing with the loss of income that many have experienced and the poverty and inequality that people are facing in our country.
This Bill does nothing to improve our country’s bleak economic outlook. As the Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed, the UK is suffering the slowest recovery in any major advanced economy. GDP in the UK at the end of this year is further below the 2019 level than it is in any other G7 country, and any future economic growth in the medium term is likely to be anaemic: the OBR forecasts an average growth rate of just 1.5% a year between 2024 and 2026. Meanwhile, our long-term growth rate fares little better. Brexit is forecast to reduce the UK’s GDP by a staggering 4%, and the OBR has drawn attention to a 2% hit as a result of the pandemic. If the Conservative Government had grown our economy at the same rate as other countries with advanced economies since 2010, the economy would have been £100 billion larger by 2019, leaving over £30 billion more to spend on public services without the need to raise taxes.
Given poor growth and high taxes, it is no wonder that the outlook for living standards is so dire. The director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has described the outlook for living standards as “actually awful”, with the country facing
“five more years of stagnant living standards at best”—
and that is in the context of a decade of stagnant wages. How are people meant to cope with all that has happened over the last decade as well as the impact of the pandemic and the increase in fuel prices and the cost of food caused by disruptions in supply chains?
In-work poverty has reached record levels under the Conservative Government. There are now 2 million more people from working households living in poverty than there were in 2010. Of the 6 million families who were hit by the £20-a-week cut in universal credit, fewer than a third will benefit from the changes in the universal credit taper rate. While those changes are welcome, 4 million other people will not be given the help that they need. As the Minister herself admitted, many of those people have caring responsibilities or serious disabilities, and are not in a position to return to work. Their incomes will fall dramatically: they will lose £1,000 a year, and that will force more of them into severe poverty.
In my constituency the child poverty rate has increased over the years, and now stands at 60%. Nearly 20,000 households, which include 11,000 children, have been hit further by the universal credit cut. According to the Independent Food Aid Network, there has already been a 66% increase in demand at food banks across the country since the cut, after only a few weeks. As we approach Christmas, the food bank queues are growing longer and longer in constituencies such as mine, and food banks are struggling desperately to cope with the spike in demand. That is only set to become worse. It seems that the Government have learnt nothing from the lessons taught by campaigners such as Marcus Rashford; in fact, they have made matters worse for people who desperately need support.
The Government have also failed to deliver on their net zero promises. There has been plenty of rhetoric and little substance, and, indeed, a cut in domestic air passenger duty was announced in the run-up to COP26. We have a Government who are treating the climate emergency as an afterthought rather than something that is central to what we do in the future. We need a green jobs and a green investment revolution, and, as has already been said, we need a focus on a just transition. The Government do not seem to have the commitment or the ambition to deal with a climate emergency.
The Bill lands tax rises on working people while giving tax cuts to banks, and this feels like groundhog day because a decade ago, when the Government first came to power, their instincts were very similar. There were tax breaks for bankers and austerity for the rest of the country, and that has continued: the Government have reverted to their worst instincts. There is evidently no plan for economic growth, and we are facing a terrible future with low growth and high taxes. What we need is a Government who will stimulate growth, invest in improving people’s living standards, and ensure that there is more fairness in the distribution of income and opportunity across our country.
If the Government were serious about growth and improving our productivity, which has been poor for a very long time on their watch, they would invest significant sums in school catch-up, so that our economy can benefit from the investment in skills in creating an economic future that addresses the challenges we face now. We have a long way to go to catch up with other countries because of the twin hit on our economy from the pandemic and the long-term impact of leaving the EU. That is why we needed this Government to be creative and innovative in their policy announcements, and bold in terms of investment in our businesses, small, medium and large. They need to do that on a greater scale than we have seen if we are to recover from what has happened in recent years in our country.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is my great pleasure to contribute to this debate. Today, 16 November, we mark the feast of St Margaret Atheling, Queen of Scots, one of our two national patron saints and, like the rest of us, an adopted Fifer. For those not familiar with it, I recommend a read through her life story, because a surprising amount of it has lessons that are as relevant today as they were nearly 1,000 years ago, when she was alive. For example, Margaret was revered for her generosity to the poor. She is said to have regularly gone into the streets dressed in poor clothing and given food to the hungry and money to the poor. She clearly believed that earthly power has no legitimacy unless it is used in the interests of others. We might want to bear that in mind in the decisions we take later today, and indeed every day, in this place.
I wish to look at some aspects of the Finance Bill, and at who it benefits and who it damages. I go back to the question I raised with the Minister earlier about prosecutions and penalties against promoters of the loan charge. I was disappointed that the Minister did not answer the question as to how many such penalties had been applied. I would have thought that, if it was that important to the Government, they would have made sure that their officials put that information into the briefing for today. I have no issue with people who deliberately went into loan charge agreements knowing that they were wrong and that they were doing that only to dodge their rightful tax liabilities going through the full legal process. However, a lot of people who signed up to the loan charge did so because they did not understand it or because they were assured by paid tax advisers that it was all okay, and a lot of them did it because they would have lost their jobs if they had not. They get hounded to the ends of the earth—some of them literally get hounded to death—yet very few of the people who made millions out of these schemes have ever been brought to justice. The victims in my constituency have serious doubts as to whether any of the real villains of the piece will ever be brought to justice or indeed whether this Government have any intention of doing that.
When we look at the impact of this Finance Bill, and of the Budget statement it is based on, we must not let ourselves be hoodwinked by the massive impact of other announcements that have been flipped through by the Government in other ways over the past six months or so to try to make it look as though their Budget was not quite as savage as it was. We must recall the £1,000 a year cut in universal credit; the ending of the pensions triple lock, leaving our pensioners more at the mercy of rampant inflation than they were before; and the national insurance hike, which has been trumpeted as the saviour of the health and social care sector, whereas the reality is that, for several years at least, very little of it indeed will go into improving the availability of social care in England. It might be there in three or four years, but this is not a crisis that is going to be there in three or four years—it is a crisis that has been there and has been ignored for far too long.
Of course, sometimes when the Government want to increase taxes, they like to find sneaky ways to increase taxes on low-paid workers in a way that does not make it obvious what they are doing. All they have to do to achieve that is to do nothing. There is nothing in this year’s Finance Bill about the thresholds for the different rates of income tax. There is nothing in it about the level of income at which someone first becomes liable to pay income tax, because they have left it exactly as it was last year in cash terms. With people likely to face inflation of 4%, people on low incomes will either take a real-terms cut in wage of 4%, or if they get enough of an increase to match inflation the Chancellor will say, “Thank you very much. I’ll have a bigger cut of it for myself than I had before.” People on low earnings who are already struggling need an increase of 4% to stand still and to continue to struggle.
The 1.25% increase in the national insurance charge might not seem to be that much; 10p or 50p an hour below the proper living wage might not seem to be that much, but it soon adds up. Take, for example, someone working 40 hours a week on the Government’s new minimum wage of £9.50 an hour, and paying income tax and national insurance according to the rates and thresholds set out in the Bill. Those are exactly the people the Government say the Budget is designed to help. They are exactly the people for whom work is supposed to pay. Now, take the same person but this time getting the real living wage of £9.90 an hour, let their personal allowances and national insurance thresholds keep pace with inflation, and scrap the national insurance increase, leaving it at 12%, instead of 13.25%. The difference in their take-home pay is £800 a year. That does not seem much to those of us lucky enough to be on an MP’s salary, but for those who are just about managing to get through to the end of the week, another £800 a year in their pocket—or £800 taken out of their pocket by the Budget—makes a significant difference. The impact of this year’s Tory cuts alone—they are cuts, no matter what the Minister might say—is that those people are suffering a pay cut of almost 5% in real terms.
We have not even started to look at the more fundamental issues referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and why we need a complete rehash of the entire tax system. Why should somebody who, by an agreed definition, is earning only enough to live on pay income-based taxes at all? Why do we not set tax and national insurance thresholds to match the proper living wage so that the tax authorities have no claim whatsoever on the wages of those earning only just enough to keep them and their family alive?
The Government may well say that times are difficult, that tough choices must be made and that we cannot afford to inflation-proof tax allowances this year, but the tax allowances of some have been inflation-proofed and more—not individuals but businesses that are, for example, lucky enough to be able to afford to buy a casino. In clause 80, on page 63, we see changes to the thresholds for the various rates of gaming duty: the tax that casino operators pay in what is termed the gross gaming yield, which is the difference between the stakes that people pay in and the winnings they take out. It is in effect an income tax on casinos and similar places. Lo and behold, the tax thresholds for casinos are going up by 5.4%, which is higher than the rate of inflation that the Chancellor expects to see. That is on top of their inflation-busting increase last year. They have had an increase of 8.7% over just two years.
To put that into context, a casino with a gross gaming yield of £10 million a year will pay £100,000 less in tax next year than it would have last year, while the poor souls working their tails off in the casino kitchen keeping the clients fed and watered will be paying higher taxes. How can it be right that a casino owner pays £100,000 less in tax while the people whom they employ on low pay in their kitchens and catering departments have to pay increased tax? That is not a necessity; it is a deliberate political choice, and it is the wrong choice.
If only other businesses had as much to celebrate as the casino industry clearly does. Hospitality businesses are—quite rightly—being told to adapt their business models so that all their workers get paid a fair living wage. I have had some quite difficult conversations with hospitality businesses in my constituency that are not happy at that. But why on earth do the Government think it is also the right time to tell them that they must pay more tax on every single job that they create? Why on earth is it right to tell them that the rate of VAT that they will pay next year will be 60% higher than this year? It is ridiculous.
I am not saying that we should not take difficult decisions. The UK’s finances, like those of many western democracies, are in a seriously difficult place. The Minister said that levels of debt and borrowing are affordable. They are—just about—but they certainly are not sustainable. We must turn that around quickly. Difficult decisions need to be taken, but the problem is that, far too often, the Government are happy to take decisions that are difficult for other people but not at all difficult for their friends, chums and millionaire donors. The economic impact of the covid pandemic has almost certainly been made much worse because of their total lack of planning on the economic impact of the action needed. That means nearly all the Government’s support schemes had to be thrown together at almost no notice, which inevitably means they did not achieve what they were supposed to achieve. Very few of them achieved optimal results from day one. Too many people, several million of them, were excluded from support altogether, and almost all the schemes that were implemented turned out to carry levels of fraud risk that were far higher than they needed to be. Billions of pounds of public money has been lost to fraud that would have been avoided if the Government had prepared better in advance.
The economic damage of the pandemic could have been lessened, although we accept it almost certainly could not have been avoided completely, but the economic damage of Brexit could have been avoided completely if, in 2016, people had been told the truth of what it would involve. Let us not forget that the Government’s analysis is that the self-inflicted damage of Brexit is likely to be twice as bad as the economic damage of the covid pandemic.
To a much larger degree than the Government will admit, the tax rises on the poor contained in this Finance Bill are the price of a Brexit that, let us not forget, was rejected by almost two in three voters and every single local authority area in Scotland. If that is the price for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom, it is a price I do not believe the people of Scotland are willing to pay any longer.
Interestingly, a standard form of wording that I do not see in this Bill is, “Extent. This Bill shall apply to Scotland.” I do not expect it to be too much longer before those words are no longer part of any legislation passed by this House.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
You surprise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am usually last.
I came to this debate solely to make a proposal on local government, but because the House is not packed I will respond to some of the previous comments. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) on his comprehensive analysis of the Government’s Budget, which revealed its lack of substance as much as anything. The purpose of having a Finance Bill after a Budget, and especially after a spending review, is that it is meant to embody the Government’s strategy and political analysis in line with their appraisal of the economy and the political situation.
It is difficult to discern from this Bill any form of overall Government strategy, and it is difficult to understand how the Bill relates to the many real-world issues we currently face—that is what is so surprising. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) made the critical point that, having come back from COP, we might have expected the Government to be fired up to mobilise the whole economy with the purpose of ensuring we tackle the existential threat of climate change, but there is very little in the Bill that relates to any of that major threat.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) explained the situation of many of our constituents who face deprivation, challenges, insecurity of income and issues with the delivery of public services. Not only is there nothing in this Finance Bill that will tackle those problems, but the reverse is true: benefits are being cut and austerity continues. That is quite remarkable.
On a side point, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) always says when we have a Finance Bill before us that the Government, yet again, have not tabled an “amendment of the law” resolution. That is an arcane parliamentary point, but it is important because it limits our scrutiny of the Finance Bill.
If I were trying to identify the Government’s strategy on the basis of the Prime Minister’s words, the high-skilled, high-wage economy is meant to be based on high levels of investment. The Chancellor has referred to the ending of austerity on numerous occasion, and the Prime Minister has made reference to the importance of tackling climate change. I see none of that in the Bill.
I caution the Government. Let me put it in this context: we have had two weeks of report after report of corruption, in effect, on top of month after month of public amazement and now, increasingly, shock about what happened with the distribution of covid contracts. Confidence in not just the Prime Minister but the Government is now at an all-time low. At the weekend, I saw in one article that unless things change, the Prime Minister will be out by the summer—and that was Tory MPs speaking, not us. Lots of evidence now abounds that the Foreign Secretary’s and the Chancellor’s leadership election campaigns are up and running and that the structure is being put in place for that challenge, when it comes, but it is more serious than just the future of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). There is currently a loss of confidence not just in the Government but in governance overall, and more so this week: from what I heard on the news this morning, there are going to be announcements about transport investment this week that renege on the commitments to the funding of rail in the north, particularly in respect of the extension of High Speed 2. In that political context, the Bill takes on a greater significance than usual.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I wonder whether I can encourage my right hon. Friend to discuss the fact that the levelling-up agenda is nothing—it is absolutely meaningless. It does not tackle the issues that have led to the high and unequal covid death toll in areas in the north-east and north-west in particular, and it certainly does not cover the disparities in infrastructure investment, such as in transport, which my right hon. Friend mentioned. Would he like to say more about that?
John McDonnell
I raised in my Budget speech the lack of confidence in the Government’s commitment to levelling up overall and even to defining what it means, and I mentioned the importance of the need for a bit of levelling back because of the scale of the cuts that have been endured over the past 11 years.
I make the general point that there is currently a level of insecurity and uncertainty, and a questioning of politics overall and of whether the people can trust any politician. I thought that with a Budget and a comprehensive spending review the Government would at least be able to set out their plans and bring forward the measures in the Finance Bill so that we would at least know where they are going, which might give us some security or confidence that the Government at least have some sense of direction. I do not think it is there—it is certainly not in the Bill. We can take some humour from this situation. The Chancellor certainly led with his chin in respect of the proposals to cut the bankers’ levy and the tax on flights and champagne. No one could blame the shadow Front-Bench team coming forward and taking the rise out of what was quite obviously a bankers’ Budget.
Let me comment on a number of the key issues that have been raised in the debate so far. If the Budget was about the end of austerity, high skills, high wages and so on, the Bill flies in the face of all that. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) talked about how people have been treated in respect of other announcements; how can the Government argue that the Bill is about high wages when they are freezing tax bands, introducing national insurance increases and cutting universal credit? All those things hit earners.
Something fundamental at the heart of this Bill—it was at the heart of the Budget, too—is the Government’s refusal to take on the imbalance between the taxation of wealth and the taxation of earnings. We have seen it in the Government’s setting out of proposals some time ago on reforming capital gains tax but their failure, yet again, to do it in this legislation. Given that the argument over the need to ensure that we tax on capital and wealth as well as on levels of earnings has been won, the proposal that I thought would be in this Bill was to ensure that taxation on earnings and on capital gains were brought into line. The amount that that would bring in to the Government was initially recalculated at £14 billion, but I see that the TUC’s figure is £17 billion. That could have resolved the issues in social care. That would have ended austerity for large numbers of our population.
The Government argue that, in the Bill, they are doing something about the taxation of earnings from dividends, but it is negligible in comparison with what is needed and it sends out a similar message that they are willing to penalise earners, but, at the same time, allow others who earn their money from wealth to walk away.
The reason that the bank levy offends is not just that it is going back to the days of the crash and the scurrilous role that the banks played in enabling that to happen—the profiteering at all our expenses; it is because what the banks have is the best insurance policy in the world. It is an insurance policy, backed up by the UK Government, that no matter what they do, no matter how much they fail, they will never be allowed to fail because the Government will always step in and bail them out. An additional levy was placed on the banks to make sure that they paid something back from the crash, and also that they paid something in return for the guarantee that they were given. What we find now is that the amount that they have paid so far does not even pay off some of the damaging costs that fell to taxpayers as a result of their wild speculation that brought about the crash.
One matter that has been raised in the debate—the Exchequer Secretary has also mentioned it—is that of tax reliefs and the extension of the annual investment allowance. I can understand why the Government have done that, but what I cannot understand is why they have done that as well as introduce the super deductions. The Government’s argument is that 99% of the business investment that is undertaken will be covered by the annual investment allowance, but to then go on and give a super tax deduction of 130% flies in the face of that argument. If we look at the record of tax reliefs, most of which, historically, have never been reviewed by the Treasury, we see that they mount up year after year, decade after decade. Some of them go back nearly a century, but they are never reviewed, and that is often with scandalous effect. On the entrepreneurs’ allowance, even the Government had to accept that that was an abuse of an allowance. People were walking away with large amounts of benefits without in any way demonstrating their entrepreneurial skills. It is the same with the patent box.
Let me now come to the tonnage tax. I have been lobbying on that now for nearly 15 years. The tonnage tax was introduced by John Prescott—by the way, I hope that all of us will send our best wishes to him in the hope that his recovery from the severe stroke that he had is going on apace—as part of a strategy to revive British shipping. The purpose of it was to give a tax allowance to shipping companies so that they would then employ more UK seafarers, and employ them on a decent wage as well. Year after year, we argued about it with the Government—the Labour Government got into this one as well. Large amounts of money were going to these shipping companies, but the jobs were not appearing. In fact, we were losing UK seafarer jobs. Seafarers were largely being recruited from abroad, and in some instances were not even being paid the minimum wage. The tonnage tax was linked to the training of officer cadets, not ratings, and a limited number of officer cadets were recruited by the shipping companies. As a result of lobbying—I was there in a meeting with the Minister—we did get a bit of flexibility, whereby if a company was not recruiting officers, it was able voluntarily to recruit ratings and still qualify for the tax.
Let me just explain to the House the tonnage tax figures. The tonnage tax was introduced in 2000-01. Its cost—£2.165 billion. How many jobs do hon. Members think have been created, that we know of, for £2.165 billion? Does anyone want to intervene with a figure? All we know about, on the record, is 75; that is £28 million a job.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Almost as good as they get!
John McDonnell
Don’t tempt me.
Those are the only figures that we have, but I thought that we should be generous and say that there were, on average, 25 jobs a year at least. We do not know, as all we have is the figure of 75. In the case that there were 25 jobs a year, we are still talking about, at best, £4 million to £5 million a job in subsidies for the British shipping companies. I do not know what other Members think, but there is an issue of productivity here, is there not? That is the sort of problem that we have when we get into relying on tax reliefs to stimulate the economy and jobs growth.
Let me make a final point on tax reliefs. As the hon. Member for Glasgow Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North have said, the failure to link these tax reliefs to the achievement of net zero means that we are undermining the ability of the Government to intervene effectively in the economy in order to ensure that we are all signed up to tackling climate change.
I also thought that the Government were going to come forward with amendments in legislation to prevent companies with any record of tax avoidance from being able to qualify for tax reliefs at all, but that is not in this legislation. We are therefore in a situation where we are giving tax reliefs to companies that we know have in the past engaged in tax avoidance. Of course we all welcome the tax avoidance measures that the Government have introduced, but this legislation is an incredibly slow, incremental development. We need to go so much further, with full transparency and enforcement.
When we are trying to enforce against tax avoidance, the one thing that we must not do is open up opportunities for new forms of tax avoidance, but the Office for Budget Responsibility, the UK Trade Policy Observatory and the TUC have said that the introduction of freeports is the new opportunity for tax avoidance schemes, for the displacement of jobs from one area to another with no overall benefit, and—this is exactly what the TUC is saying—for the undermining of trade union rights; and we know what that will do for workers.
I have welcomed the Government’s investment in HMRC. I was sitting here years ago when the first major cuts to HMRC were introduced, and we saw the results. It was an undermining of the work to address tax avoidance and evasion. However, as other hon. Members have said, unfortunately the new jobs have gone into chasing compliance issues as a result of covid, and not into increasing the operation to address tax avoidance.
Those are the issues that I just wanted to comment on. I actually came here to make one specific point and put forward one proposal with regard to local government, but as there are not people rampaging to speak in the debate, I thought that I could at least comment on some wider points.
The point I wanted to make is about what is happening with regard to local authority finance. I thought that as part of the Budget, the comprehensive spending review and then this Bill, the Government would bring forward what has been promised for some time now—a fairly radical reappraisal of local government finance with the potential for reform that would provide local authorities with the resources, as well as a relatively independent source of income, that would then embody their ability to engage in genuine levelling up across our society, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). But the figures show that local government funding from central Government grant is about £16 billion a year lower today than it was in 2010. Cumulatively, that is a reduction over that 11-year period of £100 billion in central Government support for local government.
That means that before we can even talk about levelling up, we need levelling back. We need to give councils the power to invest in local services in their communities again. The hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), who is not in his place, raised the importance of the Budget for local communities, and I agree. This Bill should be doing that, but apart from the occasional grant to individual communities—on, unfortunately, a sort of pork barrel basis—there does not seem to be an overall strategy to enable it to happen. As I said during the Budget debate, we have seen the impact, with the cutting of funding for nearly 900 children’s centres, 940 youth centres, 738 libraries, and 1,200 bus routes. Local government was mentioned only once by the Chancellor in the Budget speech. There was no acknowledgement of what councils have endured over the past 10 years—that includes Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and SNP councils—or the debt crisis that is now engulfing many town halls in our country.
I was hoping that we would at least get the opportunity of some resolution of the debt problem of local councils within the Finance Bill, or would have the opportunity to prepare amendments to enable that to happen. Creatively, we will see whether we can bring amendments forward in that way, but that is made more difficult by the amendment to the law motion not being brought forward by the Government. Many councils across the country are in debt. In recent years, three section 114 notices have been issued, in the case of Tory as well as Labour councils, and dozens more have applied for and received emergency Government loans.
Some time ago, as part of their pushing local authorities to try to seek alternative local funding sources, but also as part of their commercialisation agenda, the Government forced councils into a position where many of them sought to compensate for the lack of Government funding by borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board to buy investments with revenue-producing potential. Some of those investments have proved to be risky misjudgments. Admittedly, this has happened across the board, with all political parties in control in different council areas, but the Government have to take some responsibility for the mess, because they have forced those local authorities into that sort of speculative behaviour, which is also beyond their levels of experience and expertise.
In addition, there has been a complete lack of oversight from both the Department for local government, under its various names over recent years, and the Public Works Loan Board, which has lent the money to those councils. The accounts of the Public Works Loan Board reveal that over £2.8 billion was lent last year and over £3 billion was generated in interest income. That is extraordinary: it is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Councils are under huge financial pressures, and they now owe £71 billion in debt to the Public Works Loan Board. I want to see whether we can amend this legislation to reduce the interest rates to councils. The Bank of England base rate is still 0.1%, so every pound spent on interest by councils—it is the same for central Government—is £1 less spent on social care, children’s services, street cleaning, bin collections or whatever. The average interest rate charged by the Public Works Loan Board is 3.57%. That is 36 times higher than the Bank of England base rate. What we need in the longer term is stronger oversight of loan applications and for the Public Works Loan Board to charge interest at the Bank of England base rate.
In the meantime—this is why I was hoping that the Government would move somewhat in this legislation—to deal with the high interest rates and the high levels of debt, we need some form of debt jubilee for local councils. That could be a zero rating on all existing loans before we move to the Bank of England base rate on all new loans. More expansively, it could recognise the failure in recent years from central Government to oversee and the impact of Government austerity cuts, which have led to the debt crisis in local government. The Treasury arguably should fund a partial debt write-off for councils. With more than £70 billion in principal debts, plus interest rates, even a 20% write-off could free up nearly £15 billion for local councils to spend in the coming years.
That is the proposal I wanted to argue for in this debate. It would be welcomed cross-party in local government and would relieve many local councillors from the appalling decisions they will have to make in the coming months between increasing local council taxes and, more importantly for many of them, another round of cuts in public services, because of the high interest rates they are having to pay and the interest charges that are falling upon them.
The final point I will make in this Budget debate is to return to the points that a number of Members have made. This Finance Bill does not seem to relate to the Government’s strategy overall, and it certainly does not relate to the needs of our communities. I worry that after the experience of covid, people are looking increasingly to the Government to provide leadership. This Budget, the comprehensive spending review and certainly this legislation do not provide that. The Bill will increase the levels of concern and insecurity that unfortunately are impacting on our communities. I find it a disappointing piece of legislation, and I hope that by way of amendment we might be able to improve it. In that way, we might at least meet some of the challenges our communities face, tackle some of the poverty and deprivations, end austerity and maybe give a bit more hope to the communities we represent.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I rise to my feet on behalf of the Liberal Democrats to say that we cannot support this Finance Bill, which derives from a Budget that missed a vital opportunity to help struggling families in this country. Instead, it hammers them with tax hikes, empty words and broken promises. It is completely out of touch and offers nothing to help them with the energy bills that they will face this winter. Worse than that for me, the Bill sends a clear message to children and their parents that they are worth less to this economy than investment bankers and banks. Far from providing the support that families needed when we are facing a cost of living crisis, this Finance Bill will provide less in extra catch-up funding for schools than it does in tax cuts for big banks. There will be just £1 of extra catch-up funding for each child, compared with £6 a day in tax cuts for each banker. That brings the £1.8 billion new catch-up money offered to just £5 billion, one third of what the Government’s own advisers said was necessary to allow our children to catch up on the many millions of hours that they have in total lost in their classrooms over the past 18 months, which threaten, according to official figures, to leave them losing anything up to £46,000 in income over the course of their lifetime. Putting bankers before children tells us everything we need to know about the priorities in this Bill.
People who have worked hard, paid their taxes and played by the rules are seeing their incomes squeezed through no fault of their own. They are being crippled by tax hikes and their benefits have been slashed—all in the face of skyrocketing bills. We should be demanding a fair deal for families and an investment in future generations: support for vulnerable families, more investment in our children’s education and more funding for tackling the climate emergency. Instead, we see an end to the £20 uplift to universal credit, nearly half the minimum wage rise clawed back through the increase in national insurance, no help with energy bills, the Chancellor’s announcement on universal credit taper giving back just one third of what he snatched away, and millions of families with no help at all.
When it comes to the climate, while COP26 was getting under way in Glasgow and we were all looking for something that would send a clear message that saving the planet was a major priority, what did we get? We got a reduction in air passenger duty, which will do nothing at all to help to reduce carbon emissions.
This Bill offers nothing of what we would like to see for the people of this country. It offers nothing, either, for the businesses, because it fails to deliver on the Government’s promise to reduce business rates through a fundamental review of the system, leaving companies with no long-term support as they cope with the impact of the pandemic and new international trade barriers. The business rates announcement will not abolish the skewed and complicated system, which only benefits property landlords and not the hard-working business owners who rent from them. Even the tax cuts for businesses investing in green energy for properties are only set to benefit commercial landlords, not our high street shops, whose owners will really pay the bill.
Businesses have been hit hard by endless Government disasters, the handling of the pandemic and a new mountain of red tape introduced post Brexit. However, I cannot agree with the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) that the answer to all that is an independent Scotland.
Christine Jardine
Not this time. On that point, I cannot agree, because there have been Governments in this place that have done wonderful things for Scotland, not least of which was to deliver devolution, and we have learned in Scotland over the past 14 years that moving the Government to Holyrood does not guarantee it will be any better. On behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Democrats, we will not support the Finance Bill and we will support the Labour amendment.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I have a lot of sympathy for the last comments by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), and I thank my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for bringing into the debate local government, its finance and the challenges it has faced over the past 10 years. Having come from local government to this place, I know that he speaks wise words on this issue.
I too rise to oppose the Government’s Finance Bill and to support the Labour amendments, and I will cover three aspects. The first is the cost of living. Over the recent weeks and months, I have heard from so many constituents about the hardship they face in seeing their energy bills spike and the cost of the weekly shop rise, and from families seeing their rent climb and climb. This Bill does nothing to support the millions struggling with the cost of living.
We should not forget that, even before the Budget, the Chancellor hit my constituents and those across the country with a double whammy. To plug gaps in the NHS and social care, he hiked up national insurance, a regressive tax payable by everyone in work. Other ways could have been found to find the funding needed than this regressive tax hike.
Then the Chancellor decided to cut £1,000 from universal credit for all those claimants. This is essential income that supports over 30,000 families in the Borough of Hounslow alone. About 40% of those claiming universal credit are in work, something that the cloth-eared Conservatives tried to deny for years whenever we raised the issue of universal credit in this House. At last, they have got it, but the changes they have made to taper relief still trap so many in poorly paid and irregular work—work, sadly, that is far too common in my constituency and across the country. The new taper rate only actually benefits about a third of working people on universal credit. The cut in universal credit is absolutely devastating. It is the choice between heating and eating, or between a winter coat and a pair of shoes for a child.
I recently visited the Hounslow Community FoodBox, which supports about 13,000 people in our local area. Demand for its services has skyrocketed locally over the last 18 months, and this is mirrored across the country. The Trussell Trust, the national food bank trust, distributed over 2.5 million food parcels last year, but it saw an increase of 33% over the previous year. How do the Government respond to this food poverty crisis? They ramp up taxes on families, while cutting the very support that is allowing them to barely stay afloat.
I have also recently visited Look Ahead, which is a national charity on contract to Hounslow council. It supports young people in supported accommodation—young people who, by definition, do not have family support. Look Ahead offers vital support services to these young people, and it and the young people warned me that the universal credit cut would be devastating for them. It is worth remembering that universal credit claimants already face a number of hurdles, such as the benefit cap, the two-child limit—the bedroom tax—and the cruel five-week wait, which makes people wait for five weeks to receive crucial support.
Secondly, I will be voting against the Finance Bill because it does nothing to support those already impacted by the loan charge and still being forced to sign illegal disguised remuneration schemes if they want to do the work in which they are skilled. The all-party parliamentary group on the loan charge and taxpayer fairness published a damning report earlier this year on the wild west supply chain of unregulated umbrella companies and rogue recruitment agencies that conspire to lure workers into tax avoidance schemes, often entirely unwittingly, yet the Government have so far done nothing but publish some guidance.
When will the Treasury take some ownership of the bullying and aggressive activities of HMRC in chasing down those who have signed these disguised remuneration schemes? These schemes are still being openly sold and have been targeted at many lower-paid workers, including, shamefully, NHS staff being recruited to help with the nation’s response to the pandemic. Too many ordinary workers advised to use these schemes have been hammered to the point of suicide, while promoters with known links to the Conservative party have not yet been asked to pay a penny. This is an all-too-common theme with this Government, who continue to ignore the reality and the evidence.
The reality is that if HMRC enforces the loan charge on the thousands of people who now face it, there will be many more bankruptcies, more mental anguish and potentially more suicides, as well as more people losing their homes and more unable to continue to work. The fact is that there is considerable new evidence—evidence not known at the time of the last review—showing that the conclusion of the Morse review was flawed. It seems clear that this important evidence was not shared with Sir Amyas, now Lord Morse. Indeed he was not given an accurate or complete picture by HMRC and the Treasury, and having in the past spoken to Treasury Ministers I sometimes wonder how much control the Treasury has over HMRC or whether it has become a rogue agency.
The clause in the Finance Bill mentioned by the Treasury Minister does nothing to stop the ongoing mis-selling. To stamp that out legislation on umbrella companies is needed. Fining the promoters and freezing their assets is all well and good, but it is much easier to legislate to make agencies responsible, as the APPG proposed, and that would stop the schemes overnight. Without legislation to clean up the supply chain there will be ongoing skimming of contractors’ pay, misappropriation of holiday pay, and backhanders between agencies and umbrella companies. Action is needed to actually stop the schemes rather than pursue the scam after it has happened.
We know that HMRC has not been able to find legal precedent for the loan charge and that it itself used contractors on loan schemes while claiming at the same time that it was clear that that was wrong. We now know that all along it knew that many people would not be able to pay while claiming they could and would do so. Common sense, if not compassion, dictates that effective legislation and a fresh and genuinely independent review is needed to come up with a resolution to the loan charge issue, avoiding devastating consequences for thousands of families and going after the right people for a change. We have new Treasury Ministers now and I hope they will approach the issues of the loan charge and disguised renumeration with an open mind and agree to carry out this much-needed review, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) has urged.
Finally, I want to address the air passenger duty changes. This Government repeatedly say one thing and do another on climate change. If I wanted to buy tickets to go to Glasgow in three weeks I would pay £65 to fly with easyJet from London, yet a train ticket to Glasgow on the same day would cost me £69, and that is before the cut in APD on domestic flights is introduced. The fact that it is still cheaper to fly than to travel by train is a key reason why we are not seeing the reduction in carbon emissions we so desperately need. One way to reduce the number of short-haul flights is to improve train travel, but whether in the choice of routes, the length of journey, the cost of tickets or the experience on board other European countries are miles ahead of the UK and have been for many years. It is no surprise that short-haul domestic flights contribute so heavily to our carbon emissions when this Government have absolutely failed to fix rail travel. And this week we hear they are going to cut the proposed rail services to Leeds and Manchester. This Government are not only failing communities across the country but are failing our climate. The Government should impose the polluter pays principle to their transport policies and the fiscal policies that support them.
In conclusion, I will oppose the Bill because it punishes low-income households but does nothing to relieve the nightmare for current and future loan charge victims and it treats the climate emergency as an afterthought.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), whose speech was punctuated throughout by the sound of many nails being hit on the head.
The Budget and this Bill needed to address three key issues: the cost of living crisis; the supply crisis with the resulting inflationary crunch from that; and of course the environmental crisis. With regret, I have to say there is little cheer in the Budget or the Bill for anyone other than a bank shareholder or those who profit from the lack of urgency from this Government to tackle financial criminality and the lack of financial transparency as London rapidly gains the unenviable reputation of the washing machine for the dirty money of the world.
Let me deal first with the cost of living. Many Members have spoken at length, in the Budget debate and today, about the Conservatives having broken their manifesto pledge on increasing national insurance. We all know by now—I hope it is incontestable—that that increase hits the lowest earners the hardest. It bakes in generational and geographical inequalities, which will be a feature of our social and economic outlook for many years to come.
I intervened on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—she was gracious enough to accept that intervention—to try to get some clarity on how the money raised by that increase will make its way through to the social care sector. We all understand that it will go into the health service, and we all appreciate that it can do much good in dealing with the crisis there, but I am sorry to say that until some answers start to be forthcoming about what impact it will have in the social care sector—and, importantly, how—the UK Government will be left looking very much as if they lack a plan.
The UK Government have barely even started to get to grips with the nature of the whole-system problems that we are facing in health and social care, and the need to integrate them. That was the case even before the covid crisis. We require a whole-system approach to many of the problems that we are seeing in health services, and I get absolutely no sense that the UK Government have thought that through. They are doing what they have routinely criticised many other Governments for doing and focusing on the inputs without having any reasonable or intelligent focus on the outputs.
It is not just direct taxes that affect the cost of living crisis; indirect taxes have a massive impact too. My colleagues and I have called for a continuation of the VAT reduction for hospitality. It seems unconscionable and unexplainable that that should be withdrawn in the early part of next year. It is often said that a banker is somebody who will offer you an umbrella when it is not raining and then take it back the instant that some dark clouds appear on the horizon, and many hospitality businesses will feel that that analogy applies to them with the VAT reduction. With lower footfall and cash flow, they did not get the chance to benefit throughout this year, and just as they come into what will be a crucial summer season for many of them, that financial boost is to be taken away. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider that and to allow those businesses to trade their way back to health.
Of course, VAT is intended to be a tax on non-essential goods, yet it is still levied on a wide range of goods that we simply cannot do without, such as domestic energy. It is a tax that can influence behaviour, but it can also be used to stimulate growth and the kind of recovery we need.
I would like to pick up one anomaly in the way that VAT is applied currently, and that relates to school uniforms. I have to say that I was not a particularly enthusiastic wearer of the school uniform when I was at school, unless I had to wear it when I was representing the school, in which case I did not have any quarrel with it. Nevertheless, I accept the arguments on the importance of school uniforms. They are an enormous leveller. The uniform instils a sense of pride and belonging, and it means that everybody is the same. It can also be a boost to household incomes not to have to compete when it comes to the clothes that children wear to school.
School uniforms are often compulsory, yet we still charge VAT on them, at the full 20% rate, for children over the age of 14, and even for children who are under that age yet have grown beyond the size that HMRC stipulates for certain school uniform items. That is hitting hard-working families really hard in the pocket at a time when a whole range of other factors are conspiring to squeeze their incomes. I do not believe that that can be right.
The British Educational Suppliers Association estimates that the cost of waiving VAT on school uniform items in Scotland would be about £1 million. To do it right across the whole UK would not cost a great deal more than £10 million. That is not a sum that is going to trouble the Treasury unduly. Some Conservative Members might not even get out of bed for a consultancy if they were earning less than that. Nevertheless, removing 20% VAT on what are essential purchases in anyone’s estimation could really make a big difference to individual families. We will look to return to that in Committee. I hope the Government will listen very carefully on that because it could benefit family incomes the length and breadth of the UK.
There have been many other hits to household finances in recent times. There is the removal of the £20 universal credit uplift. There is a Government commitment to a real living wage which seems to be at a rate running one year in arrears. No sooner do the Government expect plaudits and hurrahs for hitting the target, than a month later the rate is revised and the Government wait another 11 months to play catch-up. We are also seeing the removal of the pensions triple lock. All those matters will conspire to squeeze family incomes at a time when families can least afford it.
In the remainder of my contribution, I would like to concentrate on the impact of the failure to get to grips with the supply and environmental crises, particularly in the north-east of Scotland. An enormous series of problems is being caused by shortages of labour. That applies in the haulage sector and, in particular, in the food and drink, hospitality and agriculture sectors. We have seen crops rotting in the field because there are not enough people to harvest them. We are seeing a crisis in the pig industry. There simply are not enough skilled abattoir workers and butchers to deal with the throughput from that industry, which is leading to a looming animal welfare and human crisis.
I have heard many Conservatives say, “Why can’t you just hire local workers?” Well, frankly, you cannot just hire that sort of skilled, dedicated and experienced labour. We cannot just wave a magic wand and magic it up out of nowhere. However unskilled and unspecialised the Government might consider many of those positions, they really do need to act and act swiftly. This is not even a financial measure; it is simply about making sure all parts of the UK have an immigration policy that is appropriate for their economic and social needs. If the UK Government are not prepared to do that themselves, they should devolve it to the devolved Administrations to decide for themselves. I have absolutely no doubt that the devolved Administrations could make much better and much more enlightened and productive choices than the UK Government have shown themselves capable of making so far.
Finally, there is the environmental crisis. Let me be very clear about this: there can be no transition to net zero in the UK without the skills, human capital, knowledge and the expertise of the north-east of Scotland, particularly the contribution of the constituents I represent. COP26 made many important steps forward. Despite that, we are still seeing an almost complete mis-match and failure to engage the clutch plate when it comes to aligning Government rhetoric with actual tangible Government action in this Bill.
The Government have already failed to match the £0.5 billion commitment from the Scottish Government to net zero transition work in the north-east of Scotland for Aberdeen city, Aberdeenshire and Moray. They have also, completely and inexplicably, failed to proceed with the Acorn carbon capture and underground storage project just north of my constituency in Peterhead. An enormous percentage of the potential carbon capture storage is just offshore from Peterhead. It was the most advanced project. It is the only one that can repurpose existing infrastructure. It is the one that can come online most quickly. It is the one that can accept imports of carbon dioxide from other parts of the UK that are as yet not up and running and do not have the ability to sequestrate their own carbon. I am thinking particularly of the clusters in south Wales and around the Solent. It is an absolutely inexplicable decision, which seems to have been taken purely for partisan political reasons and the benefit of playing the politics of the pork barrel in parts of the north of England.
In conclusion, the Bill fails to get to grips with the key challenges that we knew we were facing heading into the Budget. We can only hope that it improves as it goes through Committee and on Report.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate for the official Opposition. It is noticeable that the Government could convince only one of their Back Benchers to turn up to defend their Finance Bill. This has been a short but good debate, with many thoughtful speeches, and I thank all the hon. Members who have taken part—in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as well as the hon. Members for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), for Gordon (Richard Thomson), for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew).
The hon. Member for Broadland highlighted the importance of local communities. I look forward to scrutinising the details of the alcohol duty changes in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow spoke powerfully about the Bill’s failure to boost growth, increase living standards and tackle the climate crisis. I will return to those points shortly. She also made a very important point about wasteful Government spending and the dodgy contracts that have been given out during the pandemic.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made a number of important points, including about fairness in the tax base, the Government’s reforms to the tonnage tax and local authority finances. I hope that the Minister can answer the specific questions that he asked about reforms to local government funding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth spoke passionately about the cost-of-living crisis and how she has spoken to many constituents about the hardship that they face. She talked about the reality of what the Government are doing on universal credit and the shameful food and poverty crisis in this country. She also made important points about the loan charge, and I hope that the Minister will respond properly to the points that several Members made on that issue.
This Finance Bill is a product of the Government’s economic failings over the past 11 years. At the Budget, the OBR forecast growth averaging just 1.3% in the final years of the forecast period, which follows a measly 1.8% in the decade leading up to the pandemic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) said, we can compare that with Labour’s record of growth of 2.3% a year when we were in power. The Conservatives are a party of low growth and the Government have no plan for growth. Working people are paying the price for that failure. They are paying the price in increased national insurance contributions and the freeze in income tax personal allowances. They are paying the price through the cut to universal credit. They are paying the price through lower wages, with real wages on course to be more than £10 an hour lower in 2026 than if the pre-2008 trend had continued. And they are paying the price through inflation that is hurting family finances, with food, heating and petrol all more expensive.
Yesterday, a member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee told the Treasury Committee that consumers are spending an increasing proportion of their incomes on food and energy. They made the point that businesses may struggle with the rising cost of materials and labour because consumers will not have additional disposable income to spend. Does the Finance Bill include measures to help people with the cost-of-living crisis? Does it reduce the burden of taxes on those who can least afford to pay? Does it encourage investment and boost growth? The answer is no. Like the Budget that it stems from, the Bill has no plans to tackle the cost-of-living crisis, no plan to grow our economy and no plan to help businesses to succeed.
Instead, the Government’s priorities in the Budget and the Bill are to cut taxes on the banks and make domestic flights cheaper. It is beyond belief that in a Budget just days before COP26 began in Glasgow, the Chancellor chose to cut domestic air passenger duty. I am afraid that that is yet further evidence that the Treasury is not serious about our net zero commitment. Clause 6 will slash the corporation tax surcharge for banking companies from up to 8% to 3% and will raise the surcharge allowance from £25 million to £100 million. Those are the wrong priorities for an increasingly out-of-touch Government.
Labour’s priorities are different. We would use the Finance Bill to bring down energy bills with a cut in VAT on domestic energy; to tackle the climate crisis, rather than making it worse; and to fundamentally reform business rates to help businesses in every part of the country.
With the transition to net zero, the Government seem intent on leaving individuals and businesses to meet the costs on their own, without recognising the opportunity for growth and jobs. Labour knows that investment can unlock good jobs across the country, while helping households to cut bills and keep their homes warm. On business rates, Labour has put forward proposals for fundamental reform, while the Government have broken their promise to do so.
This week, research by the Resolution Foundation found that business investment in the UK lags behind that in countries with higher productivity. Business capital investment in Britain was 10% of gross domestic product in 2019, compared with 13% on average in the United States, Germany and France. There are many reasons for that, including the Government’s patchwork Brexit deal, but the Bill does nothing to help to boost investment.
Labour’s plan for replacing business rates will introduce a system that will incentivise investment, reward businesses moving into empty premises and encourage environmental improvements. Our climate investment pledge will encourage billions in private finance, and unlike Government Ministers, we have a real plan for growth.
No doubt at further stages there will be considerably more to say about other clauses, but I would like to make a few points now. On the residential property developer tax in part 2, we support the principle of taxing the largest developers to pay for the cost of removing unsafe cladding, but we are concerned that the levy alone will not be enough. The Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government estimates that there is a gap of £13 billion between the £2 billion that the levy is expected to raise and the £15 billion cost of works—and it has been reported that the rising cost of works as a result of the Tory supply chain crisis will wipe out much of the £2 billion.
Can the Exchequer Secretary confirm who will meet the gap? Labour is clear that it should not be the leaseholders. The Government must ensure that those who are responsible for putting dangerous material on buildings pay their fair share. Time and again, the Government’s handling of the cladding crisis has left leaseholders on the hook. The Government must finally get a grip on the problem and help the thousands of people who, shamefully, are still living in unsafe accommodation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington raised the measures on tax avoidance. We support the principle behind the new economic crime levy, which will raise funds to pay for measures to tackle money laundering. Can the Exchequer Secretary tell us more about how the levy will be spent? Does she think that it will be enough to implement the measures in the economic crime plan?
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North made several critical points about other measures to fight economic crime. Will the Exchequer Secretary confirm exactly when the Government will introduce the vital legislation on the register of overseas entities? “When parliamentary time allows” is simply not good enough, when the Government first announced the policy in 2016. As my hon. Friend for Ealing North said earlier, it is notable that the momentum to implement the measure seems to have disappeared since the current Prime Minister took office. We know that this Prime Minister is no fan of transparency or of playing by the rules, but we are facing a crisis of dirty money and corruption—and not all of it is in relation to the Cabinet. The Pandora Papers show how many shell companies are laundering money in this country and buying up luxury properties. We will use the further stages of the Bill to push the Government to do more about economic crime and tax avoidance.
This is a Finance Bill that fails to rise to the challenges we face. It contains nothing to make up for the years of low growth over which this Government have presided, nothing to tackle the climate crisis or to unlock opportunities that the transition to net zero brings, and nothing to ease the growing tax burden on working people. Indeed, the Government have used this Finance Bill to cut taxes on banks rather than cutting them for working people.
The truth is that the Government’s failure on growth means less money for public services while the Government increasingly take more from people’s pay packets. In contrast, Labour has a plan to grow the economy, to invest sustainably in the jobs of the future, and to make our tax system fair. It is for this reason that we will not support the Bill tonight, and I urge all hon. Members to vote against it.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Government. In a moment I will address many of the points raised in the debate, but I want to begin by reminding the House of the announcements made by the Chancellor in the Budget: more investment in infrastructure, innovation and skills; business rates cut by £7 billion, including the 50% business rates discount for the retail, hospital and leisure sectors; a cut in the universal credit taper; a £500 increase in work allowances; and an increase in the national living wage, rewarding people for their hard work. Those are announcements that the Finance Bill builds upon.
Let me remind the House what the Bill is designed to achieve. First, it will deliver a stronger economy for the British people by encouraging businesses to invest in the UK’s future growth and prosperity. Secondly, it will help to deliver stronger public finances. Thirdly, it will improve our ability to tackle economic crime, tax avoidance and tax evasion. Finally, it will contribute to a simpler and more sustainable tax system, in turn supporting businesses and consumers.
A stronger economy and a strong, dynamic business environment go hand in hand. As a Government, we will always do everything that we reasonably can to encourage business investment. The previous Finance Bill delivered the super deduction, the biggest business tax cut in modern British history, and extended the annual investment allowance, to the end of this year, at its higher level of £1 million. Now is not the time to remove tax breaks on investment. That is why the Bill extends the £1 million level again until the end of March 2023, encouraging businesses to bring forward investment—because this is a Government who back business. It is also why the Bill will make our creative tax reliefs more generous by extending the relief for museums and galleries for another two years and doubling the reliefs for theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries until April 2023.
A number of Opposition Members spoke about the taxation of banks. I should like to put everyone straight on that. As the Bill explains, the surcharge will be set at 3% from 2023, which means that the combined tax rate on banks’ profits will increase—I emphasise that: the tax rate will increase—from 27% to 28%. [Interruption.] There seems to be some problem with doing maths. Opposition Members are shouting at me, but it is a simple fact: the rate will go up from 27% to 28%. Banks will be paying more tax. It may be convenient for Opposition Members to suggest something different—they like the rhetoric—but it is simply not true.
Richard Thomson
As the Minister is so good at maths, can she tell us what the tax rate would be if the surcharge was not being reduced?
Helen Whately
The answer to that question is 33%, but the fact is that the rate is going up, from 27% to 28%. That is an increase in tax; it really is quite simple maths.
While supporting investment and competitiveness in our key industries, we must also continue to fund our crucial public services and strengthen our public finances. To keep this Government on the path of discipline and responsibility, the new charter for budget responsibility sets out two key fiscal rules. First, underlying public sector net debt, excluding the impact of the Bank of England, must, as a percentage of GDP, be falling. Secondly, in normal times the state should only borrow to invest.
That is the context for the introduction of the health and social care levy, which we have already voted on, and the 1.25% increase to tax rates on dividend income, delivered through this Bill. This funding is to provide a new long-term funding stream for health and social care, raising more than £12 billion a year over the spending review period, of which £5 billion is earmarked for social care—that picks up on the question from the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). I would be delighted to tell him more about the plans involved in that, but I would be digressing too much from the context of the Bill and that is probably one for another occasion. However, what I will say to Opposition Members who want to scrap that extra funding is that they have no other plan to finance getting down the NHS backlog or social care reform, other than through borrowing—they would pass the cost on to future generations. The Government are taking a responsible, fair and progressive way to raise revenue. Additional and higher-rate taxpayers are expected to contribute more than three quarters of the revenue from this increase in 2022-23. Those with the broadest shoulders will pay more.
A number of hon. Members asked about the funding of net zero. Taking a step back for a moment, let me say that the net zero strategy sets out our path to net zero by 2050. Overall, we have earmarked £30 billion-worth of investment in net zero, but that is a long-term investment. Net zero funding in this spending review and Budget specifically includes £1.3 billion of energy innovation funding, £1.4 billion of public sector decarbonisation funding, £1.8 billion to help low-income households to transition to net zero, £620 million extra for the transition to electric vehicles and up to £1.7 billion for large-scale nuclear energy. So, as hon. Members can see, there is funding for net zero in the spending review and Budget. In addition, the revised Green Book means that all policy objectives need to align with net zero.
Let me turn to measures in the Bill that tackle economic crime, and tax avoidance and evasion. The Government are committed to making the UK a hostile place for illicit finance and economic crime, helping to protect our security and prosperity. In recent years, we have taken a series of steps to combat economic crime, including the creation of a new National Economic Crime Centre to co-ordinate the law enforcement response, as well as passing the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which introduced new powers for enforcement authorities to investigate cash believed to be derived from criminal proceeds. The Bill builds on those steps by introducing the new economic crime levy, which will help fund further action on money laundering, including the ambitious reforms that the Government announced in the 2019 economic crime plan, and help safeguard the UK’s global reputation as a safe and transparent place to conduct business. It is a proportionate measure, which will be paid by entities that are regulated for anti-money laundering purposes.
We are also taking action through the Bill to clamp down on promoters of tax avoidance schemes. In response to the question from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), we are giving HMRC new powers: to freeze and secure a promoter’s assets; to introduce a new penalty on UK entities who support offshore promoters; to petition the courts to close down companies or partnerships that promote avoidance schemes; and to share more information on promoters to support taxpayers to steer clear of such schemes.
James Murray
Will the Minister explain when the register of overseas entities owning UK property will be in place?
Helen Whately
I am happy to write to the hon. Member on that question.
Finally, I turn to the administration of the tax system. Only last year, the Government published a 10-year tax strategy that seeks to improve the tax system and its support for taxpayers. The House will recall that the Chancellor was clear in his Budget speech that we must deliver a simpler, fairer tax system that supports consumers and is also competitive for business, and we have, for example, the most radical simplification of alcohol duties for more than 140 years. As part of that, community pubs can look forward to a new and simpler system of alcohol duties, including draught relief, which will cut duty on beer and cider served in pubs by 5%, as celebrated in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew). Alcohol duties will also be reformed around the simple, common-sense principle that the stronger the drink, the higher the rate. That will be legislated for next year after a detailed consultation.
In the meantime, the Bill does more to build a simpler and more sustainable tax system. Basis period reform, for example, will remove the existing highly complex requirements around basis period rules, including double taxation of early years of trading. Anyone who, like me, has studied accountancy will appreciate that.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary said at the beginning of the debate, the Bill comes before us when we are seeing significant improvements in the economic situation. The Government are rightly focused on economic recovery, and let there be no doubt that our plan is working. A year ago, the country was experiencing the deepest recession on record, but thanks to our plan for jobs, which the Office for Budget Responsibility has called “remarkably successful”, we are recovering fast. The OBR expects the economy to return to pre-pandemic levels at the turn of the year, several months earlier than it thought in March. We do still have historically high levels of debt, but new fiscal rules together with measures in the Bill will ensure that the public finances remain on a sustainable path.
It is a Bill that encourages business investment, delivers stronger public finances, tackles tax avoidance and evasion, contributes to a simpler and more sustainable tax system and fundamentally delivers a stronger economy for the British people. For those reasons and more, I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
Clause 4; Clause 6; Clauses 7 and 8 and Schedule 1; Clause 12; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses and that Schedules 1 to 5, 24 to 26, 28, 31 to 33, 40 and 86; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the impact of any provision on the financial resources of families or to the subject matter of those Clauses and that Schedule | 2 hours from commencement of proceedings on the Bill |
Clauses 27 and 28; Clauses 53 to 66; Clauses 84 to 89; Clause 90 and Schedule 12; Clause 91 and Schedule 13; Clause 92; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses and those Schedules | 4 hours from commencement of proceedings on the Bill |
Clauses 68 to 71 (value added tax); Clause 93 and Schedule 14 (free zones); any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses and that Schedule | 6 hours from commencement of proceedings on the Bill |
Business without Debate
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Autism and Neurodiversity Research Funding
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is with great pleasure that I rise in my first end-of-day Adjournment debate in the better part of eight years, but it is a topic that I am very happy to return to from this position. It is one that I championed in Government and one that I worked very hard on when I was a Back Bencher prior to my ministerial office. I am hugely grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me today’s debate.
Many hon. and right hon. Members will know that this issue has been close to my heart for many years: autism and the range of brain conditions that can be summarised by the word neurodiversity. From my own direct family experiences, which I spoken about in this Chamber when we held the first Chamber debate on autism back in 2013, and from the plethora of constituency casework that I have worked on over the years helping families of children and young people with autism and associated conditions, I have developed a certain knowledge and experience of these issues. As a Minister and a Secretary of State, I was glad to be able to push the agenda even further.
One of the privileges of being a Back Bencher is that I can put on record my thanks to local organisations in my constituency which do so much to support and work with people with autism, whether it is officers of the local authorities, volunteers in local carers’ groups such as the Swindon Carers Centre, or organisations such as the Uplands Enterprise Trust, which is pioneering and developing more post-19 support for young people with autism and other disabilities in my area, working with the excellent special schools network and the Brunel multi-academy trust in Swindon. It is really innovative work.
My debate today is the beginning of a process that was made clear in my exchange of letters with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on my departure from Cabinet two months ago: to bring about a sea change in how autism and other brain conditions are not only diagnosed, but supported and treated throughout the lives of those people. Our country is one of the most advanced in the world when it comes to these issues, but there is still a huge amount to do.
My successor as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism, the late, great Dame Cheryl Gillan, will always be remembered as the author of the groundbreaking Autism Act 2009, which was a new departure for health, in that a specific condition was delineated in legislation, much against the initial resistance of the then Government, but the strength of feeling in this place and outside was such that Dame Cheryl thankfully got her way. The autism strategy, which was revised in its latest iteration only in July this year, is the direct result of that important legislation. Twelve years on, I think we can safely say that awareness and diagnosis levels have risen dramatically, but the situation remains stark.
About 1 million people in the United Kingdom are autistic, but they still have some of the worst outcomes in our society. First, the death rates mean that they die on average decades before the rest of us. Secondly, with two in 10 in employment, they have the lowest employment rates of all disability groups. Importantly, and deeply worryingly, disproportionate numbers of autistic people and people with brain conditions end up in mental health detention or, even worse, in our criminal and youth justice systems. They are being locked up by a system that represents barbaric practices from a generation ago. I have certainly found, from my professional and ministerial experience, far too many in our prison system, our young offenders’ institutions and our criminal justice system generally with those conditions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman has had a particular interest in the issue for a number of years, for both personal and other reasons, so I congratulate him on securing this debate. I give an example from Northern Ireland, which to be fair is not the Minister’s responsibility, but shows what is happening: an increase of 148% in the number of children waiting for an assessment for autism and a 687% increase in the number waiting more than a year for an assessment. This is a system where the capacity is nowhere near meeting demand, as I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has also said. Does he agree that a corresponding increase in funding to get to the root of autism and how best to treat and live with it must be a priority for the Government?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who rightly outlines some of the pressures on the system—the increase in diagnosis, which in many ways is a good thing, and the personnel and capacity issues that cause many of the delays in diagnosis, which are all too familiar a pattern for many families, including those in England, Wales and Scotland.
It is interesting to note that research by, I think, the Northern Ireland Assembly calculated the estimated cost to the country of the failure to deal with autism at a staggering £32 billion. Let us just think about that. What a cost to our country: resources wasted, lives wasted and lives lost as a result of these omissions. It does not have to be like this.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
It is such a shame to see my right hon. and learned Friend not in Government, but such a pleasure to have him on the Back Benches and to be here for his first speech from the Back Benches in what I suspect is a number of years. Seeing that we have a lot of time in tonight’s Adjournment debate, does he, as a former Lord Chancellor, agree that the way we look at people on the autistic spectrum within the secure estate, and the way he is proposing we might look afresh at that, might affect the way we look at the secure estate as a whole—to understand a lot more, and condemn a lot less? We have such a high prison population, many of whom, especially women, should not be in the secure estate. Could this be the issue that causes us to look afresh at our prison system?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In 2020, he and I visited his local prison in Winchester, a prison with many challenges and, there is no doubt about it, a share of the population with a brain condition, sometimes undiagnosed and often an acquired brain injury. Many people who are in for offences of violence have themselves been the subject of violence. Those issues are frankly endemic within the criminal justice system.
That is why, when I was Lord Chancellor, in last year’s sentencing White Paper, I announced a call for evidence on neurodiversity in the system. I was hugely grateful to Charlie Taylor, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, and Justin Russell, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation, for leading that independent call for evidence. Charlie Taylor was a public servant who came from the education sector, specifically the special needs sector, had real frontline knowledge and experience of autism and brain conditions and previously ran the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.
The good news is that, thanks to the published results of the call for evidence, the Government committed—I am pleased to say I committed—to training for frontline staff and the upskilling of those staff right across the criminal and youth justice system, as part of a new custody and detention apprenticeship that is being offered and that will be completed by all prison officers. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is developing a revised policy framework and guidance all about those issues, but in particular about children in custody with those conditions. This work is carrying on. I will develop those points a little further. I know people are anxious to come in.
Robert Buckland
I will let my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) in first before my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).
Simon Hoare
I echo what our hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) said in that it is a travesty that my right hon. and learned Friend is not speaking still from the Front Bench, but it is a delight to hear him speak this evening.
To go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), what is my right hon. and learned Friend’s assessment of the impact of covid on diagnosis, assessment, the provision of support and the crucial need to link up the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions?
Robert Buckland
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that covid has had an impact on backlogs in all parts of the health system, including diagnosis. Having said that, there are significant advantages in the use of remote technology for people with autism and brain conditions. For them, very often the journey to a clinic, hospital or health centre is in itself traumatic and anxiety forming. I see remote technology as a real liberator for many people with autism, so the potential there is immense.
Sadly, the point my hon. Friend makes about the impact of covid is one that, without increased capacity and increased staffing, we will have to wrestle with for a number of years. On the point he makes about joined-up Government, I well remember saying on many occasions to anybody in Government who wished to listen that Justice could not do this on its own. As a downstream Department, it needed Education, Health, the DWP, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and, frankly, all arms of Government to work together to identify some of these problems at the root to prevent them from becoming part of criminal justice, but I will speak more about that in a while.
Sir Robert Neill
My right hon. and learned Friend is making the case most powerfully and demonstrating, as other hon. Members have said, why it is a tragedy that he is not still on the Front Bench.
I welcome the very significant initiative that my right hon. and learned Friend made in relation to this when he was the Secretary of State—something that, as he will know, the Justice Committee warmly welcomed. Does he agree that it is very important now that we maintain the momentum for this, and in particular that the moneys available to the Ministry of Justice in the spending review are put into important areas of this system that for too long, until his work, were overlooked?
Robert Buckland
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee. It was encouraging to see that the revenue settlement for the Ministry of Justice over the next three years was a pretty good one, with a just over 4% increase year on year. Obviously, it is now going to be for Ministers, in their allocation process, to work out precisely what they want to spend within that envelope. I very much hope that the announcements we made as a result of the call for evidence—published as part of the autism strategy document in late July, which I cleared together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health—will be followed through on.
More than that, it became increasingly clear to me, as I read the response to the call for evidence and as I followed the debate, that screening people coming into the criminal justice system and the prison system is an essential prerequisite of understanding the best way to handle them. I think a screening process for brain condition would reveal acquired brain injuries. It might reveal an undiagnosed condition—maybe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, attention deficit disorder, dyslexia even. Let us do that at this stage and work out what is going on in people’s minds, so that we can not just better manage them, but actually help them along the path of rehabilitation.
Do you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my worry is that, time and again—not just in the prison system, but in the probation service—regimes are set up and orders are made with the best of intentions, and the people with these conditions are set up to fail, because they are not able actually to access, understand or compute that in a way that perhaps neurotypical people can? That is not their fault; it is a fact of who they are and what they are. That is why we need to change the approach that we take. I do not want to see people set up to fail. I certainly do not want excuses for criminal behaviour, but I do want smart answers on ways in which we can meaningfully rehabilitate people. I have seen it happening. In Parc prison—a private prison, I have to say to those on the Labour Benches—in south Wales I was awestruck by the work being done on the neurodiversity wing. Prison officers trained in the right skills were working with some of the most difficult and complex prisoners in that estate and achieving results that might not to the naked eye look terribly remarkable but which, by the measure of the people they were dealing with, were extraordinary. We need to replicate that sort of work, which is being done in one corner of the estate, across the entire prison estate.
The wider debate is all about replicating the best practice we see across Government and local government, and across private enterprise and business as well, because I do not want this debate to be just about what the Government can do—me with my metaphorical hand out, saying, “More money please.” This is about society realising that if we are going to crack the issue and make a difference, we need carefully targeted research into what works.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend back to the Back Benches. I am sure we will be hearing more from him over the coming weeks and months. Does he agree that as well as research, on which I agree entirely, societal support is needed? Organisations such as the Caxton Youth Organisation, a brilliant youth club in my constituency for children and young people with autism and learning difficulties, can play their part in supporting young people with autism. Society and Government also have a part to play because this is about us all working together to support these young people.
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right. Drawing on her local government experience and having been directly responsible for many of these services she encapsulates the best practice we see in many local areas. The trouble is that we do not see it everywhere and there is, to use the dreaded phrase, a postcode lottery, which is just not good enough for so many families across our country.
I see where we are now as a moment to make a choice. There is a golden opportunity for Government and indeed for society, and I deliberately wanted to include neurodiversity in this debate because I believe it is hugely important. Diagnostic descriptions are vital for many families. Speaking from my own experience, they open a door to statutory services and obligations—statements, as we used to call them, or education, health and care plans as they became under the Children and Families Act 2014. However, the system is in danger of becoming a prisoner of that process. In the natural concern that public authorities have to conserve resources there is a danger that we start to become overly obsessed with labels and then find that if somebody is not labelled there is, to mix my metaphors, a cliff edge and nothing for the person who does not happen to get through the door marked “autism”.
Let us think about that for a moment—think about how wrong that is in terms of the lives we are dealing with. No one person just presents as autistic; they might have a range of conditions and challenges including, for example, epilepsy, which, sadly, is a very common comorbid condition with autism. There are also other conditions that might fall short of autism but if undiagnosed the consequences can be baleful, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, attention deficit disorder, dyslexia and other types of impairment that mean that people cannot access education, for example, in the way that neurotypical people can. These conditions might not be seen as acute compared with some other conditions that are diagnosed but can lead to disaster for the individual if they are not diagnosed.
School exclusion—I see the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) in her place—is the most obvious consequence. That is a particular issue, and the disengagement with the system that it can lead to all too often leads to a descent into criminality, which, frankly, then brings us back to the criminal justice outcomes that I have been wrestling with all my professional life and in my ministerial incarnation. In devising the right type of support, we need to try to put the process in its proper context. We must remember that this is about the person and centre something on the individual and their needs.
I am delighted after many years to renew my association with Autistica, our country’s leading autism research organisation. Today, by happy coincidence, it published an excellent support plan on autism. Having read it very carefully, I think it is groundbreaking. It is targeted, and it tries to move the debate in a direction in which I think all of us, including the families and those who have autism, would like to see it go. That contribution follows from the Government’s own commitment, in the revised autism strategy published at the end of July, to improve autism research, to improve innovation and to look for examples of best practice.
As we near a very important moment in the life of our country, with the Department’s publication later this year of the long-awaited White Paper on social care, Autistica has identified a gap in research—and guess where the gap is, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is in social care. We have learned so much about genetics and about the causes or the reasons for autism. That has been incredibly important in understanding that this is a condition, not an illness or a disease, and that there is no cure, and in moving away from all that redundant language and understanding the condition for what it is—and celebrating it too, by the way. We do not do enough of that. We tend to view it as some sort of wicked problem. For many people, it is actually their life; it is who they want to be and how they want to be recognised. We must never forget that.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend is making a powerful speech, and it is good to have him free to contribute in this way. Does he agree that, in so far as there are problems, they can be in people’s responses to those with autism, and that if people were to respond in a better informed and more generous way, then such problems as exist today may not be there in the future?
Robert Buckland
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt that an inappropriate response, or a response, however well intentioned, that results from a lack of evidence or a lack of understanding, can make a bad position much worse for somebody with a condition such as this. Therefore, for me, research is not a luxury or an optional extra; it is essential. If we, as public services, as private enterprise, as business—as an economy that needs a supply of new talent, bearing in mind the announcement today that there are 1.2 million job vacancies in our country—are to really release the potential of people with brain conditions, then this is, to use the phrase, a no-brainer.
Greg Clark
I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend’s indulgence—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I did not correct the right hon. Gentleman the first time, but it is essential that he faces the Chair rather than the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), because he cannot be heard if he is speaking to the back of the Chamber. I never understand why, when there is all this space, people want to sit where the occupant of the Chair cannot see them. There must be a reason for it.
Greg Clark
I will address you directly, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accept your ruling on that.
One problem people with autism sometimes face is that, when they come to an age where they are looking for jobs, work experience is increasingly important and some employers are reluctant, based on lack of familiarity and nervousness, to give work experience opportunities to young people with autism and other conditions. Work experience is an essential gateway to employment. Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in encouraging employers to open up and give work experience opportunities to a wider range of young people?
Robert Buckland
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have seen that in other areas, for example mental health, where there has been concerted work, including by excellent organisations such as the Mindful Employer Network in my area, to demystify the issue and remove the stigma. Such work allows employers to understand autistic people, some of whom see the world in ways that you and I could not dream of. Going back to my celebratory point, it is all about the potential of people with neurodiverse conditions and what they have to offer.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the debate and on his cause. It is incredibly exciting that he has chosen this subject to focus on after his ministerial career—not that it is the end of his ministerial career; I am sure it will carry on—and I just want to stress how important it is that we talk about autism and educate people about it. In my constituency, we had a five-year-old boy who was excluded from school. He was on the path to being diagnosed, but had not quite been diagnosed. His classroom was moved around over half-term and when he came back, he did not understand where anything was. He kicked off and was excluded. The language used in the letter to his mother included strange adjectives—it said that he was being “manipulative”—and other language one would not use about a five-year-old, because his teachers did not understand his condition. Now he is in a good school that does understand and he is thriving. He will have a lot to contribute to society. I just wanted to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman and say that I am very happy to support what he is doing.
Robert Buckland
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. I think we formed a pact on Sunday night that we would work together cross-party on these issues. There are plenty of others on the Labour Benches—the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) has a similar experience and knowledge of autism—who I know will put their shoulder to the wheel, and that will be incredibly powerful. She has done work on the issue of knife crime. All too often, there is a sad correlation between the isolation of people who might be suffering from anxiety driven by an undiagnosed condition and what I call a cycle of isolation that can often lead to the decision to arm themselves for their own protection. That is an aspect of knife crime—we always think and talk about gangs—that we misunderstand at our peril, so I am grateful to her for taking part in the debate.
I was talking about the golden opportunity we have. We are between the autism strategy as published and the White Paper, which I am waiting for with relish. The Prime Minister knows that that is another issue I will be pressing him and the Government on in the next few months. Many of us identify social care as an issue not just for older people, important though that this, but for adults with disabilities who need lifelong support. They must be part of the mix. More than half of local government expenditure is on adults with disabilities. If we do not pay regard to that in the plan, we are failing. Although I supported and am happy to support difficult decisions on national insurance and on funding issues, we have to make sure that the system that we are funding is well evidenced, produces the outcomes that we all want to see and has an element of accountability that, at the moment, is lacking. People talk about the black hole of health and social care funding. With respect to everybody concerned with that, that is what it feels like to us on the outside, and we have to change. That is why research on care will be so important.
Steve Brine
I am so pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend made the point that social care is not just about older people. That is so important. What he is actually talking about—who knew that the Back Benchers and Front Benchers were so joined up?—is levelling up. He is talking about realising the potential of everybody in our country. It is not that autism is therefore a condition to be managed and kept in its box, as we seek to minimise the damage, but that we want people to achieve their potential, and if everybody can achieve their potential, that is just levelling up really, is it not?
Robert Buckland
I could not have put it better myself. Levelling up is about people and communities, not things. Things are important and they deliver us levelling up, but levelling up is about people. That is why the Government have to show seriousness of purpose. I am with the Government on these things—I helped to author a lot of the documents on which they will be held to account. This matters, but if we do not focus on people, we are not going to level up. That is the point that my hon. Friend made so well.
I commend the Autistica report to hon. Members, but if I may crave the indulgence of the House for a little longer, I want to outline what Autistica suggests the key stages of support should be that will make a real difference. First, the report made the important point that support for autistic families around and shortly after the time that they receive a diagnosis has to be improved, because it is big news for families. It is a big moment when they get that diagnosis. I remember now the mixture between relief that the system is listening and deep sadness, grief and anger, and all the emotions that someone goes through as a result. These are big moments for families. It sounds axiomatic, but this does not happen, because we do not empower all families of people with autism to understand the diagnosis and to come to terms with what it means for them. This is a moment when services have an opportunity to get to know these families better and to ensure that their personal profile, which should be done, is really understood.
Simon Hoare
Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my concern that, very often, as with so many of these things, the children of the—let me use this phrase—“sharp-elbowed middle classes” seem to get a disproportionate amount of attention, care and support and those who are often least comfortable with officialdom and challenging professionals and asking questions usually get the smaller section of the pie? Quite a lot of work needs to be done on that to ensure that we have that uniformity of levelling up.
Robert Buckland
Again, that is a really important point. I do not make any criticism of the sharp-elbowed middle classes; these people are doing what they think is right for their children. I have been there and I make no apology for it, but among all those dedicated, wonderful, loving parents and carers, there are many families who do not have that wherewithal, and they often come to our surgeries and offices for help. We are the last port of call and, very often, we can make a difference. Looking back on the plethora of cases that I have dealt with, I am probably most proud—I know that hon. Members will share this feeling—of bumping into families years later and being told, “You helped our son. He has just finished his education and is going to go off and pursue a skill. If you hadn’t intervened six years ago, I don’t know where we’d be.” That is wonderful, but it should not be necessary: that is the big message that I want to convey today.
Rather than just stand here and make a general cri de coeur, my aim is to look at the bigger picture. Individual cases such as the one that the hon. Member for Croydon Central mentioned are symptoms of the problem, but it is all about dealing with the challenge itself. Documents such as the Autistica plan really help to tie the threads together and give us a blueprint that the Government, working with the private and charitable sectors, can run with.
I mentioned support around diagnosis. The document has some very interesting proposals for pilots and initiatives relating to how we can improve what is referred to as the diagnostic pathway. At the moment, there is a lot of ambiguity about precisely what is offered and what works, but the time of diagnosis is not a time for ambiguity. It is no good making educated guesses at that point; we want to know with certainty what pathways work. Families embarking on this new journey need that certainty, so I strongly commend to the Minister the document’s recommendations, particularly in relation to the work of the National Institute for Health Research.
As stage one, we need a framework that can be applied nationally, rather than relying on purely local initiative. Stage two, as the document describes it, is preparing for the future: after diagnosis, what systems do we have to match the needs of people with autism and brain conditions with the right therapies and services? We need to make those connections better; we need to connect people to safe practical advice, particularly from people who have been through the system. Peer-to-peer support works in so many contexts, and particularly in this one.
What we and Autistica are asking for is not a finger in the air, but evidence-led systems. It is no good just saying that the needs of autistic people are diverse. They are diverse, believe me: when you have met one person with autism, you have met one person with autism. They are all wonderfully unique, in my experience, but that should not be an excuse to say, “We’ll let a million flowers bloom and see complete diversity.” We need less of an unguided mêlée and much more of a framework—a mechanism by which, with evidence, we can ensure better support for people as they prepare for life and work out the pathway.
Finally, the third element of the report is meeting in a realistic and feasible way—we are not trying to create something totally out of this world—the evolving, ever-changing needs of people with autism. That is particularly important at the transitions, be they from primary to secondary, from secondary to tertiary, or from tertiary out of education. Age 25 is a big time for people who have an education and healthcare plan, because it is the moment when it stops—and what’s next? All such transitions can feed anxieties that if left unchecked can develop into a co-morbid mental health problem, with the concomitant waste that I spoke about at the beginning of my speech.
The truth is that the needs of people with autism and their families fluctuate and change. Instead of inviting crisis, let us plan for it and avert it. The support that the report envisages is all about services that will be there if things start to get a bit heavy, but that can be light-touch in other circumstances. The suggestions about nurturing expertise in the NHS and social care with hubs of expertise to deliver specialised services seem the most sensible way of developing those service models.
This is going to take investment, but, as I have said, I do not believe that it should begin and end with Government, which, hopefully, is good news for my hon. Friend the Minister. If she has had a chance to see the report that I mentioned—it was published only today, but I know that her officials will be familiar with it, because Autistica works very well with the Department, and I commend those officials for working with it so constructively—she will know that it sets out a costed programme, in which Autistica itself declares it will invest, or partner, to the tune of nearly £16 million. That is money from the third sector, but we ask the Government to step up, because the total cost of the projects that Autistica envisages in its list is just over £65 million. All those projects are designed to improve the evidence base and hence to improve the way in which we can deal with each of those three stages, and I warmly commend them to my hon. Friend.
What, finally, is the context in which we should work? I have talked—at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious—about the need for Government Departments to come together: the Department for Work and Pensions on employment, the Department for Education on exclusions, the Minister’s own Department on diagnostics and care, and my former Department on criminal justice. As I have said, however, this will require an effort from all sections of society, and the private sector must step up as well.
It is in businesses’ interest to get this right, if they are to unleash the talent of autistic people not just because it is good, but because it is damn sensible. It is to that sort of enlightened self-interest in the wider community that I want, through the House, to appeal tonight. I think that the offer of finance from Autistica is significant, although I want to see it scaled up. I think that the work we need to do outside this place to harness philanthropy and the support of the private sector could start to bring us much closer to the levels of research investment that we see in, for example, the United States, which, although it does not enjoy the wonderful national health service that we have in our country, is very far ahead of what we are doing here in terms of research investment.
If we are to succeed, that partnership between the third sector, the private sector and the public sector will be essential. The quid pro quo for Government is that our wonderful officials must remember that they do not have a monopoly on wisdom. I have sat in the Minister’s seat and worked with officials and worked well with them, but sometimes there is an institutional reluctance to go outside the tent because of fears about control, whatever form it may take, and, inevitably, about accountability. We must overcome that, because Government alone will not be able to crack this.
The last two years have, in many ways, opened our eyes to the potential that Government can offer. Government-led support and declarations of Government funding meant that we were able to create a vaccine manufacturing capacity virtually from scratch. I am about to see 250 jobs come to Swindon—jobs that would not have existed a few years ago, without the terrible crisis that we have all had to live through. The Government rose to the challenge, and I was proud to see them do so, underwriting, in effect, many of these initiatives.
We heard words such as “moonshot”, did we not? We heard about the Government’s big ambition to deal with the threat posed by the pandemic, and rightly so. Let us remember that. Let us bottle it and use it here. Let us have our autism moonshot; let us have our neurodiversity moonshot. Let use the power of Government—its convening power—to kick-start this research, and to lead our society in the improvement of research. Through the gathering of that evidence and Autistica’s work, we can reach some of Autistica’s 2030 goals. Its realisable ambitions for 2030 include: halving the employment gap for people with autism; services truly centred around the person with autism; proven support from day one; public spaces being more accessible for neurodivergent people; tailored health checks for people with neurodivergence; and, yes, screening at an early age, whether in the health system or the education system. That is a wider application of the principle that I wanted to see in our criminal justice system.
This could be a decade of achievement. It is up to all of us and the Government to make it happen.
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland) for securing this important debate on funding for autism and neurodiversity research and for such a wonderful, heartfelt speech. It is truly my honour to respond. I commend him on the incredible work that he has done throughout his career to improve the lives of the nearly 560,000 autistic people and about 5 million neurodivergent people across the country. In his previous roles as Lord Chancellor and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism, he has been instrumental in driving improved awareness and understanding of autism across Government.
We know that too many autistic people and neurodivergent people more generally are ending up in the criminal justice system and that much more needs to be done to improve people’s experiences. The review that my right hon. and learned Friend commissioned as Lord Chancellor in 2020 looked at this important issue and, as a direct result of his contribution, I expect our newly published national autism strategy will make a big difference to the lives of autistic and neurodivergent people who come into contact with the criminal and youth justice systems. We know that the strategy needs to improve autistic people’s lives. It was informed by a national call for evidence and incorporated the views of more than 2,700 autistic people, their families and carers. It is underpinned by an implementation plan for year one—that is 2021-22—and backed by over £74 million for the first year alone. It sets out our vision for what we want autistic people’s lives to be like by 2026. Over the next five years, we will improve understanding in society, reduce diagnosis waiting times and improve access to high quality health and social care for autistic people.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned social care, and that will be a key part of the White Paper along with the social care needs of working-age adults. We will also publish further implementation plans for year two and beyond that will build on our actions this year. They will set out how we will drive improvements across health and care, employment, education and the criminal justice system.
We have made important strides across England in the last decade since the introduction of the landmark Autism Act 2009. I pay tribute to our friend Dame Cheryl Gillan for all her work in this area. The Act includes improvements in public awareness of autism and the availability of diagnostic services. To date, we remain one of the only countries in the world to have such legislation—I know that we are proud of that—but we know that we still need to do more to ensure that autistic people have equal access to services across their lives.
One of the biggest challenges that we face is, as my right hon. and learned Friend outlined, gaps in our evidence about what services and support work best for autistic people. I saw the real-life impact of that recently when I was interviewed by an impressive young woman called Immie. She told me about her struggle and how long it took her to get diagnosed with autism as well as the struggles faced by women and girls in getting the right support due to under-diagnosis. While we know that that is an issue and are taking action to address it, we need better evidence about the effects of masking and under-diagnosis of autism for women and girls.
When I was the Apprenticeships and Skills Minister, I met many young autistic people who told me they struggled to find and get into work. Recently, at the start of UK Parliament Week, I visited Littlegreen Academy in my constituency, which specialises in providing education to boys aged seven to 16 with autism. Pretty much every single one of them asked whether I would help them to get some work experience, to help them get on the ladder towards employment. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), I took that as my action from the meeting.
Through our new autism strategy we are strengthening and promoting pathways to employment, such as supported internships, traineeships and apprenticeships, but to make further headway on closing the unacceptable autism employment gap we need to better understand the barriers to employment and the other barriers faced by people with autism.
We know that we have not reduced fast enough the number of people with an autism diagnosis in in-patient care, which is important, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon said. There are many reasons for that number, but a main reason is that people are being diagnosed as autistic after they are admitted. We need to make sure the number of autistic people in such settings is reduced, as in many cases they are not the right settings. We set up a delivery board across Government and across system partners to make sure we monitor progress, identify blockers and propose actions so that people are better supported in their community, not in inappropriate in-patient care.
Many hon. Members mentioned the lack of understanding, and it is so important that we have more general understanding. I am sure many hon. Members remember the autism training that MPs and their offices received, again at the behest of Dame Cheryl Gillan, who pushed and encouraged us all to do that. I certainly learned a lot.
As set out in the “Right to be heard” publication in 2019, we are also trialling the Oliver McGowan mandatory training in learning disability and autism for all health and social care staff, backed by £1.4 million of funding. The trials are under way, and three providers are currently delivering the training. Hundreds of staff have already been trained. There will be a final evaluation report, which is due in the spring, and the outcomes will inform the wider roll-out of the Oliver McGowan mandatory training. We are working with his parents, Paula and Tom, to introduce the training.
As part of our new autism strategy, we will publish a cross-Government research action plan that lays out the steps we will take to improve and embed a culture of autism research by 2026. We know that we need a strategic approach to ensure that areas currently receiving less research investment, such as care and support—my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the postcode lottery—are prioritised in future. We also need to make sure we are prioritising the right areas for research and that the research delivers the right change.
We will work with autistic people and their families, the research and voluntary sectors and NHS England to carry out this research action plan, which will ensure that we are building on the important work already happening in autism research. For example, we have already provided £81 million for autism and neurodiversity research in the past five years, which includes funding for a study on the impact of covid-19 on autistic people, a project to improve the accuracy of adult autism assessments and a systematic review to understand what mental health support works for autistic people.
In addition, we were delighted to announce this year a three-year partnership between the National Institute for Health Research and the UK’s leading autism research charity Autistica—which my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned—to fund research into the social care that works for autistic people. The partnership will encourage and support more research applications in this important subject area and we encourage many people to make such applications. I am glad we have had the opportunity today to hear about Autistica’s fantastic work and to welcome its new support plan. I am due to meet Autistica next week—that gives me some time to read the report—and I look forward to working with it on the development of our research action plan to transform the autism research funding landscape over the next few years.
I again thank my right hon. and learned Friend for securing this important debate and all Members for their contributions. I recognise that we must ensure that the actions we take to support and improve the lives of autistic people and their families are grounded in evidence. Through our new autism strategy and research action plan, we will level up support for autistic people throughout the country. I look forward to working with my right hon. and learned Friend and other Members to make that happen.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transport
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grant Shapps
In the Budget, we announced another £620 million for that transition to zero-emission vehicles and £180 million for sustainable aviation fuel. The plan that Labour is proposing—and I notice that the GMB union that supports it is proposing—is to stop people from flying, or to allow them to go on holiday only once every five years, and to prevent them from using their cars.
[Official Report, 4 November 2021, Vol. 702, c. 1047.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Transport:
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon).
The correct response should have been:
Grant Shapps
The plan that Labour is proposing—and I notice that the GMB union that supports Labour is opposing the plan—is to stop people from flying, or to allow them to go on holiday only once every five years, and to prevent them from using their cars.
Petition
Chiltern Railways
Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 16th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022 View all Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 November 2021 - (16 Nov 2021)
The Chair
Before we begin, I will start with a few parish notices. You all know the points about social distancing and the wearing of masks, which Mr Speaker has asked us to do when we can. We will consider the Bill point by point and the rules of behaviour in this Committee are really identical to the rules of behaviour in the main Chamber. Date Time Witness Tuesday 16 November Until no later than 10.25 am Sizewell C Company; Westinghouse Electric Company; GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Tuesday 16 November Until no later than 11.25 am Prospect; Unite The Union; GMB Tuesday 16 November Until no later than 2.30 pm Citizens Advice Tuesday 16 November Until no later than 3.30 pm Atkins Global; Doosan Babcock Ltd; Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.; Rolls-Royce Holdings plc Tuesday 16 November Until no later than 4.15 pm The Confederation of British Industry; The Nuclear Industry Association; Energy Industries Council Tuesday 16 November Until no later than 5.00 pm Mycle Schneider, Convening Lead Author, The World Nuclear Industry Status Report; Professor Stephen Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy, University of Greenwich; Greenpeace UK
We first agree the programme motion in private. This is a rather strange piece of procedure, which allows the Chair to ask the witnesses to leave and then to ask them back in again. I overrule that. As a member of the Procedure Committee, I keep meaning to tell us to change that properly. We now come to the programme motion, about which we met yesterday to agree. I call the Minister to move the motion formally.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 16 November) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 16 November;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 18 November;
(c) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 23 November;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 25 November;
(e) at 9.25 am on Tuesday 30 November;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 42, the Schedule, Clauses 43 to 45, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 11.25am on Tuesday 30 November.—(Greg Hands.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication. —(Greg Hands.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence which the Committee receives will be circulated to Members by email and also made available in the Committee room on each day that we meet.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted. —(Greg Hands.)
The Chair
Welcome to our three witnesses. Before I call on them to give evidence, I remind all members of the Committee that the questions that we ask today and, indeed, the contributions that we make during the detailed discussion of the Bill from Thursday onwards must be strictly on what is written down in the Bill and may not be on anything else. They may not be about things that you wish were in the Bill but are not; they must be simply about those things that are in the Bill, and nothing beyond that. The other thing is that we must stick to the timings given in the programme motion, which the Committee has agreed. That means that when we get to 10.25 am, no matter who may be speaking, I will require you to stop speaking and the first witnesses to leave. That may seem harsh, but we stick firmly to the timings agreed in the programme motion. No discourtesy is meant to any of you.
Will any member of the Committee who has an interest to declare please do so?
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
I would like to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a matter of public record that I was employed in the nuclear sector prior to my election.
The Chair
Thank you. I will now call the first panel of witnesses, all of whom are appearing here in person, I am glad to say. We have Julia Pyke, director of financing at the Sizewell C company; David Powell, vice-president of nuclear power plant sales and head of UK business development at GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy; and Michael Waite, director of new plant market development at Westinghouse Electric Company. I thank all three of you very much for taking the time and trouble to be here. Could you briefly introduce yourselves?
Julia Pyke: Hello. I am Julia Pyke, the financing director for Sizewell C.
David Powell: Good morning. I am David Powell, vice-president for GE Hitachi’s nuclear power plant business in the UK.
Michael Waite: Good morning. I am Mike Waite, director of new plant market development for Westinghouse Electric Company.
The Chair
Before I ask the Committee for relevant questions, are there things that the witnesses would particularly like to say about the Bill? Have you particular views about the Bill that you would like to get across, or are you content simply to answer questions that may be put to you?
Julia Pyke: I am very happy to answer questions.
The Chair
In that case, let us start with Her Majesty’s official Opposition, represented by Alan Whitehead.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Q
Julia Pyke: I think the emergence of the RAB model is very welcome. We obviously believe that the country very much needs nuclear, to support the growth of renewables and to produce electricity when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. It is very important that we deliver nuclear in a way that reduces the cost to consumers to the greatest extent it can, and we believe that the RAB model is a way of doing that and enabling private finance.
A point that is not always made about the introduction of private finance is that if we want a nuclear fleet, which, you will not be surprised to hear, I believe would be a good thing, then always relying on taxpayer funding for that fleet is not necessarily going to promote the growth of a fleet, whereas getting nuclear on to a financeable footing means that the country can size the fleet to need rather than to the availability of taxpayer funding from time to time.
Dr Whitehead
Q
David Powell: Just to make things clear, I represent GE Hitachi, which was helping with the technology supply for the project that Horizon and Hitachi was taking forward. Hitachi was one of the main participants in trying to push forward the project at Wylfa, and I think that one of the big issues was the project’s financing aspects. It takes considerable time and a lot of effort to build two large-scale reactors, and I think that the RAB model could have helped. Obviously that is history now, and we would have to go back and look at that, but I think it would have helped at least in being able to move forward with the project.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Michael Waite: That is correct.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Michael Waite: As you say, Springfields has been fuelling the majority of the UK’s nuclear fleet for almost 75 years. It is the exclusive supplier to the advanced gas-cooled reactor fleet, which will all have retired by the end of this decade. Whether Sizewell C moving forwards under a RAB would mean a supply of fuel from Springfields has yet to be determined. From a Westinghouse perspective, we see RAB as part of the solution for enabling further nuclear projects after Sizewell C. Certainly, the 2035 zero-carbon targets for the electricity generation sector require there to be further projects., If we could start a project at Wylfa and deliver our AP1000 technology under RAB, that would absolutely take its fuel from Springfields for the life of the facility and secure the life of the plant.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Q
Julia Pyke: The first thing I would say is that, of course, it is very important that the developer remains incentivised to minimise construction spend consistent with building safely and to time. The introduction of the RAB model will enable Sizewell to move ahead, so, primarily for consumers, not only will they need the electricity that Sizewell can produce but electricity bills will reduce when it comes on, because the alternatives to nuclear as the producer of electricity when the wind is not blowing and so on will cost more. Overall it will reduce consumer bills. It is, as you say, very important that we get the incentive regime right so that, although risk is shared with consumers, developers are always incentivised.
Anthony Browne
Q
Julia Pyke: Because the cost overruns will be shared, so the developers will take a significant proportion of cost overruns.
Anthony Browne
Q
David Powell: Yes. I think it needs to be fair. Clearly, what we are trying to do from a GE Hitachi perspective is really focused on driving down the cost of capital of our plants. The capital cost is a key part of that, of course, and clearly that part of the development that we are working on at the moment is to develop small modular reactors, with a key focus on reducing those costs by making the construction as simple as we can through modular build and using as much of the factory environment as we can. That obviously helps to reduce the costs of construction, as well as the risks of construction and the schedule of those. Like all technology developers, we have a reputation that we want to uphold, so our focus is trying to minimise the cost of that electricity for consumers by managing the projects very well.
Anthony Browne
Q
Julia Pyke: One of the reasons that we are so keen to go ahead with Sizewell is that it is a copy of Hinkley, and it is in copies—fleet builds—that you get down construction risks. Hinkley has two units, and you can see how much easier it is to build unit 2. Common sense tells you it is because you are doing it again. We are very much hoping that Sizewell will be treated as units 3 and 4, and we believe—consistent with ideas about fleets of SMRs—that it is in repeat build where you get down costs. Nuclear in the UK has suffered from a considerable series of ones of a kind, followed by an extremely lengthy gap in construction. Nothing has been built since Sizewell B was turned on in 1995. It is by copying, the fleet effect, making sure that we learn all the lessons and using the same experienced team.
In terms of the proportion of risk sharing, it is not fixed yet, but around 50:50 is not an improbable outcome.
Anthony Browne
Q
Michael Waite: I missed out on the last question so I am happy to answer this one. On the designation process, there is not a huge amount of detail in the Bill about what the requirements are for a company project to be designated. In the 2019 RAB consultation process, we entered some fairly detailed feedback which suggested that RAB, as well as being a very positive way forward for construction and operation financing of nuclear power, could also be very effectively utilised for the development phase of a nuclear power plant project. That development phase for a technology that was mature, preferably generic design assessment-licensed, could enable the de-risking of a project under the watchful eye of the regulator, where they are learning about the project, such that when it enters the construction phase, there is a significantly lower risk profile. From a Westinghouse perspective, I would say that that designation process could take place prior to the construction phase and benefit both the project company, of course, and also ultimately the ratepayer and Government through lowering the risk profile of the overall project.
Anthony Browne
Q
The Chair
I am sorry. Maybe I am just getting old, but I cannot hear what you are saying. Could you speak up a bit?
Anthony Browne
Sorry. I am also interested in the point about who should actually do the designation. Julia, you made the point earlier that you would have a system that responds to need, as it were. Could you see this becoming just an ordinary function of the regulator, or should it always be the Secretary of State who does it?
Julia Pyke: I think that is very much a question for the Government, and it will partly depend on which organisation has invested the time and money in doing due diligence on the readiness and maturity of the project.
Anthony Browne
Q
David Powell: I agree with Julia: clearly, that is a decision for the Government. As Mike said before, it is quite important that we look at where the designation actually starts from as well, because there is a huge part of developing nuclear projects prior to getting to construction. With the Horizon project, we saw the amount of money that Hitachi had spent—over £2 billion—and it did not get to that final investment decision, so that is an important consideration as well.
Michael Waite: If I could address the same point, I absolutely think it should be the Secretary of State who has that final authority, predominantly because there are such a large number of moving parts of the project. It is not just about maturity: it is about value for money, and is that value for money just in terms of pence per kilowatt-hour, or is it UK content? There are a very large number of very broad aspects that can be assessed.
Anthony Browne
Q
Michael Waite: None of us is in the investment community.
Anthony Browne
I know, but you have relations with the investors and you know what they are looking for.
Michael Waite: Indeed.
Julia Pyke: And it is my job to raise the money.
Michael Waite: Absolutely, the pension funds historically are great supporters of operating nuclear power plants, because those are some of the most consistent returns on investment possible. The construction phase and development phase are something different, so it is all about the risk profile for them. As I said, the more you can de-risk a project, the more it can become investable by those institutions.
Anthony Browne
Q
Julia Pyke: A consumer prices index-linked investment stream is likely to be very attractive to people with CPI-linked liabilities, such as British pension funds. Increasingly, the financial investment community is very much interested in environmental, social and governance issues, and whether or not their investment is making a difference. I think that nuclear has a fantastic track record of making a positive difference: not only does it produce low-carbon electricity, but it is a great leveller-up. It has got a great track record of offering well-paid, highly skilled, unionised jobs. It also has a very good track record with the environment itself, and the land outside the power stations. Those three things coming together will make it an investment that can fit very well into the portfolio of companies that want to make a difference with their money.
Anthony Browne
Q
Anthony Browne
I do not know whether the microphone is working. I agree with the levelling-up point, although that is more a political thing rather than, presumably, one of the criteria that the investors would use.
David Powell: Just one operational point. Julia has spoken of the confidence that the Government will bring to the investment community, and we have seen that there are companies that want to invest in projects, but we would very much like that to be operational. Getting the investment early on is quite hard to do, so the confidence from the Government’s approach on the RAB model would help to provide that confidence to the investment community.
Anthony Browne
That is the whole purpose of the RAB model. That is all my questions. Thank you.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Q
Ideally, the Bill is supposed to facilitate Sizewell C going ahead. Julia, you said that you view Sizewell C as units 3 and 4 of Hinkley Point C. Given that we are consistently told that the learning from the design of Hinkley Point C went on to Sizewell, why has the taxpayer committed £1.7 billion in the Budget to take Sizewell C to a final investment decision?
Julia Pyke: The £1.7 billion and its use is not published and not available to us. I think there is an assumption that it is for a Government investment in Sizewell C. Whether or not that money is for spending before you reach a final investment decision, or is a Government investment, is the type of investment decision for the Government and not for us.
Alan Brown
Q
Julia Pyke: There has been no express discussion about the use of the £1.7 billion in the Budget as pre-development funding for Sizewell C, no. The Government do discuss how it is that we may get from where we are now to a final investment decision, but there is no explicit linking of the £1.7 billion and that discussion.
Alan Brown
Q
Julia Pyke: We believe that the regulated asset base model—David and Michael will want to comment—is designed to come into place at financial close. The question of how nuclear projects get from where they are now—in the case of Sizewell the project is very mature, with a design and a team, and we have applied for consents; projects that are further behind obviously have a lot further to go and need a lot more money—is its own question. The regulated asset base model is designed to give the private investment community sufficient confidence in investing in nuclear that nuclear can go ahead and take its place in the electricity mix, which benefits consumers. The model is not necessarily designed to be a solution to the period from conception to financial close.
Alan Brown
Q
Julia Pyke: If you look at the roughly £200 billion of regulated assets in the UK across the national grid transmission lines, distribution lines, water companies and airports, the regulated asset base model will track the lifetime of the asset. In the case of a UK European pressurised reactor, the operational lifetime is around 60 years.
Alan Brown
Q
Julia Pyke: I think nuclear is unique among electricity-generating technologies in pricing in the cost of decommissioning and waste disposal up front. In the gas price, you do not see the cost of dealing with climate change. In the price for other forms of electricity generation, you do not see waste disposal priced in, but in the case of nuclear, the cost of decommissioning and waste management and disposal is priced in to the electricity price.
Alan Brown
Q
Julia Pyke: It is priced into the CfD for Hinkley, and it will be priced into the contractual arrangements for Sizewell.
Alan Brown
Q
Julia Pyke: A regulated asset base model will tend to pay for the asset to be available. We expect the electricity to be sold at market price and for the regulated asset base model to either provide a top-up, in the way the CfD does, if the costs under the RAB are above the then electricity price, or to pay back in if we see spiking electricity prices, in the way we have done recently, during low wind speeds and the gas price spike. It is two-way.
Alan Brown
Q
Julia Pyke: You would expect the regulated asset base to work in the way the existing £200 billion of regulated assets work, which is essentially to pay for availability.
Alan Brown
Q
Julia Pyke: I believe that the Government have done its calculations very carefully and cautiously, so I believe they are very realistic. They are comparing the cost of money under a contract for difference with the cost of money under a regulated asset base model. It is important to remember that the cost of money is by far the dominant cost to consumers. We need nuclear, and we need to get the cost of nuclear down. The dominant cost of nuclear to consumers is the cost of money, so it is entirely plausible that the Government’s figures have been carefully calculated and are right.
Alan Brown
Q
Julia Pyke: We have, of course, looked at the savings. The most important saving to consumers is that, in building nuclear, consumer bills will go down. Models without nuclear are more expensive—I think the Secretary of State himself has said that in Parliament. That is a major reason to go ahead with nuclear, and it is a major reason to introduce the most cost-effective way of financing nuclear, which the Government has concluded is the RAB.
David Powell: If I can help with that question, from the perspective of GE Hitachi, we are focused on small modular reactors in the UK. While the cost of those is considerably less than the cost of the Hinkley plants, the output is of course a lot less, at 300 MW or so. If you are going to build a fleet of those, which is where we would like to go in the UK—using that repeatability model and a standard licence design, so that once it is designed and licensed it can go through being built repeatedly, which is very much a factory output-type of approach—you very quickly get to the capital cost of something similar to a Thames Tideway project, which was £4 billion. I know that the RAB model is focused around large-scale nuclear projects, but we would also like to see that applied to small reactors or at least be considered. As yet, we have not done any analysis—all our focus has been on looking at costs, and the models have been on the contract for difference approach—but we would like to look at how that RAB model would apply, from the Government’s perspective as well.
Julia Pyke: If you look at the Tideway savings, when Tideway was first conceived of, before it was decided to do a RAB, I believe it was estimated that consumers would have to pay around £80 a year on their bills, and the RAB reduced that to around £25.
Alan Brown
Q
Julia Pyke: I cannot recall the length of the Tideway contract, but it is quite long.
Alan Brown
Q
You are hoping that RAB will facilitate the small modular reactors as well. Would that be a 60-year operational contract you would be looking for?
David Powell: That is a matter for discussion with the Government and BEIS, but our plant design life will be 60 years, in a similar way to the Hinkley and Sizewell reactors. So, yes, potentially. That really depends on what the developers and investors would like to see.
Alan Brown
Q
Julia Pyke: I do not know what plans the Government has to explain the arrangements, but I imagine it will be in line with the principles of transparency. There is a lot information available about Hinkley. Michael made the great point earlier that value for money is around many things; it is the electricity price including the price of decommissioning, but it is also around UK content and around jobs. We will have 70% UK content; we will give rise to around 70,000 jobs. We give work to over 3,000 British businesses. So value for money is a wider metric than just the cost. There is a lot of information available on our supply chain plans and UK content, and I think there will be a lot of information available around the calculation of the RAB price.
Alan Brown
Q
Julia Pyke: Jobs in construction, using the National Audit Office metric, are around 70,000. Permanent jobs to operate the plant would probably be around 900 in ordinary state, plus several thousand more when there are maintenance outages, which are approximately every 18 months.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Q
Michael Waite: In the Bill, there is not currently a clear apportionment of risk between the constructor, the developer, the investors and the consumers. It is clear that if we are developing and constructing a project, there are two approaches to ensuring there are no overruns and minimising the chances of cost and schedule difficulties. You can either take a carrot or a stick approach. If the stick is applied to the developer and the constructor, there is necessarily a larger contingency applied from day one. If I remember correctly, in the Hinkley point original negotiations there was a £2 billion contingency for potential problems and cost overruns for a first-of-a-kind project in the UK. That sort of contingency allocation can be minimised by taking more of a carrot approach, where fees and profits can be at risk but a developer and constructor is not risking losing money on the job. There are many mechanisms in place that can incentivise on-time and on-budget operation without apportioning too much risk to the construction community.
Virginia Crosbie
Q
David Powell: Clearly, based on the information that the Government have put out on the RAB model, it is designed to help lower the overall cost of nuclear by lowering the cost of capital and the cost of financing. From the information I have read and discussions before, there is potentially a significant saving on large-scale projects such as Sizewell. We would hope that from building a fleet of SMRs you would be able to gain the same benefits for consumers. As I said, we have focused on trying to reduce the capital cost of the plant through simplifying the design. Add that to the benefits of the RAB model, which can help to reduce the cost of that capital through the reduction in financing, as well as increasing the incentive to deliver on schedule, there is an ideal way to try to reduce the overall costs of nuclear for consumers. We need more nuclear in the UK in order to meet the decarbonisation targets by 2035.
Virginia Crosbie
Q
Julia Pyke: Yes. I think it a brilliant question, and the answer is that in the contract for difference the construction cost overrun risk is priced in up front, so consumers pay regardless of whether you incur a construction cost overrun. That makes the capital expensive and, because it does not pay until the station turns on, you run up interest for the long construction period of nuclear. In the RAB model, the construction cost overrun risk is not priced in up front, which reduces the cost of capital. The consumer, in paying £92.50 for Hinkley, is prepaying for the risk of construction cost overrun; in the RAB model there is a possibility, which we will do everything we can to minimise, of a construction cost overrun.
An example of how the RAB model will give people more certainty to get on with repeat build is that they have put in 46% more steel at unit 2 than at unit 1 in the same timeframe. It is a combination of not pricing in the construction cost overrun risk up front, and introducing more predictability into nuclear new builds, so we stop having huge gaps between construction in which the workforce has to relearn every time you start again.
Virginia Crosbie
Q
Julia Pyke: No, I do not believe that we can. We have to make nuclear financeable, like offshore wind, and look for that fleet-build, cost-minimisation approach. The offshore wind industry has done a great job through being able to predict the opportunities to build more wind farms. We want that same fleet approach, and we want predictability so that people can have careers, and the workforce can learn and keep getting down the costs.
Virginia Crosbie
Q
Michael Waite: With AP1000, we can benefit from a global fleet effect. We have four operational reactors, which are breaking national and industry records. Two are approaching completion of construction, commissioning and fuel load in the US, and will bring a tremendous number of lessons learned and fleet benefits to the UK. Certainly, a potential AP1000 construction project at Wylfa and other sites can be enabled only by RAB being part of the financing solution.
Virginia Crosbie
Q
David Powell: It is pretty much the same, but we are clearly developing our BWRX-300 to be a global SMR technology. We are already working with several countries, looking at the first deployment of that. We also see the UK very high in that priority list—again, bringing that fleet-build mentality and 60 years of designing these types of reactors. We are able to bring a lot of experience and know-how to that. Part of that is to try to reduce the costs of nuclear overall. We are very encouraged by seeing the RAB model, and hope that it can be applied to fleets of SMRs in the UK.
Virginia Crosbie
Q
David Powell: I think it provides more opportunity for UK investors to come forward. We have spent a lot of time and money developing our reactor design, so we are quite well ahead now in developing projects, which is really the next stage. I think the Government funding that was announced will help the development of UK SMRs, and one of the big things that RAB does is help the development of projects. You need investors for those projects.
Virginia Crosbie
Q
Julia Pyke: I think that having a stable CPI-linked project will make it possible for UK financial investors. That is a great thing; you can create a virtuous circle with the money of British pension funds investing in apprenticeships, skills and jobs for younger people in Britain, as well as in the production of electricity of course. I am confident that the RAB model will bring forward a lot more British investment and, exactly as you say, reduce our reliance on overseas investors.
Virginia Crosbie
Q
Michael Waite: We are currently very active in the Czech Republic, Poland, Ukraine and so on. Those nations predominantly have either majority Government-owned utilities developing nuclear projects or Government financing for up to 100% of the project. They are reducing the cost of capital by fully leveraging Government financing, which is the cheapest financing. Those are absolutely all regulated approaches. No projects that we are doing currently rely just on market forces to develop nuclear; it is too much of a long-term project, with massive long-term benefits, to leave it up to the market.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I have a series of questions relating to—
The Chair
Before you start, Mr Pennycook, I should say that we have five people asking questions and 12 or 13 minutes left, so can everyone be swift in their questions and answers?
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Julia Pyke: CGN currently has a 20% shareholding in Sizewell C. No material supply chain contracts are in place or intended to be in place with the Chinese supply chain or CGN. Whether CGN chooses to invest at financial close, and the extent to which it chooses to invest, is a matter for CGN itself and the UK Government. As Virginia’s question elicited, the RAB model is designed to bring in a lot more British financing and reduce reliance on overseas investors.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Julia Pyke: That is absolutely a question for the Government.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Julia Pyke: I think that Sizewell C can raise money under the RAB model. How CGN intends to go forward with a financial investment in Sizewell C is a matter for CGN and the Government.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Q
Julia Pyke: I think that the Bill is a great framework under which there is a lot of detail to be developed, and we would expect more detail to be developed in relation to designation and the conditions of eligibility. While I could hardly deny that the cost of nuclear builds has had some uncertainty in some cases, what is not uncertain is whether nuclear works and the technology works. I think there are no cases worldwide of nuclear projects that have been abandoned for technical reasons. The industry knows how to make nuclear power stations work. So I think that there is a degree of uncertainty about the exact cost, but the whole point of building a replica of Hinkley is to minimise that uncertainty, benefit from all the lessons learned and get nuclear on to a stable, repeat-build footing.
David Powell: We designed our SMR BWRX-300 on the basis of proven technology. So we know very much the cost base for that technology, and it is really in our interest and that of investors to ensure that we can deliver to time and to budget on that. With respect to the build, we would obviously want to try to minimise any impact and risk of cost and schedule overruns, because we see this as building a fleet of smaller reactors out of a more modular-type approach.
Alun Cairns
Q
Michael Waite: I do not think it is implicit, actually. We have heard about fleet benefits. What I think RAB does do, though, is ensure accessibility to the UK market for non-foreign-sovereign-owned entities. Under a CfD approach, frankly only large foreign Government-owned entities can stand that up-front cost. Then you are potentially delivering electrons, but you are delivering a foreign Government’s objectives and strategies rather than benefiting from the UK Government’s objectives.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Julia Pyke: RAB is designed to attract low-cost capital, and the cost of capital will be set competitively. We anticipate a competition, which should drive down the cost of capital, between equity investors. We also anticipate that the cost of debt, which will actually be the majority cost of the project, will be set competitively. We do not have a hurdle rate, and deciding that hurdle rate will obviously be in part a matter for Government in terms of what will offer value for money. The Government’s impact assessment talks about example hurdle rates and we anticipate that the return will be somewhere in the region of the Thames Tideway tunnel rate, plus possibly some premium for it being nuclear, which is a novel asset class for private sector money in the UK.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Julia Pyke: We think the relevant rates to look at are the rates that are currently determined by Ofgem for investors in the £200 billion of existing UK regulated assets. That is the range that we anticipate will be relevant.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Julia Pyke: As the Government have put in their impact assessment, you can run this at percentages over inflation that equate to the existing market in investing in RAB. I do not want to suggest a particular number—that would not be appropriate, because we are going to set the cost of capital competitively—but you can see the ranges that the Government have used, which they have based on the evidence of what is invested today in RAB assets.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Julia Pyke: Do you mean whether I think the Government have been overly optimistic in assessing the likely cost of capital to be derived through competition? Is that your question?
Dr Whitehead
Q
Julia Pyke: I think we are talking about two things here. There is optimism bias in relation to the outturn capital costs. The Government have taken a cautious approach to applying optimism bias to the capital costs, given that we are replicating the Hinkley design, using the experienced team, and we can see the savings made in unit 2 compared with unit 1. In relation to the cost of capital, it is entirely sensible for the Government to have based their calculations on the existing market of investment in regulated asset base industries in the UK. I do not think there is an optimism bias issue around their evaluation of existing investment rates.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Julia Pyke: I would conclude no such thing. What investors choose to bid will be a function of how attractive the product is to the equity, what else is available in the market—it will be a whole range of considerations, but essentially it will be in the area of the existing investments in regulated assets in the UK, which are publicly available.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Julia Pyke: Indeed, it does depend on the hurdle rate, but—
Dr Whitehead
But you are not able to help us this morning.
Julia Pyke: I do not think anybody is questioning the assumption that, in moving to a RAB from a contract for difference model, the cost of capital will come down, so it will save money compared with a contract for difference model.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Julia Pyke: We cannot know how much, because it will be set in the future through competition.
The Chair
Unless any other of our colleagues have a one-minute question, we are at 10.24 am and that very neatly brings us to the end of our time. [Interruption.] I am afraid we only have one minute, Alan; one yes or no question, perhaps?
Alan Brown
Q
Julia Pyke: The construction period is about 10 years, so it will take about 10 years.
The Chair
Thank you very much. I thank all three of our witnesses, who have had a gruelling session. It has been very useful; a lot of information has been gleaned from your evidence and we are most grateful to you for taking the time to come and speak to us. Thank you very much indeed. Would you mind vacating the hot seat? You will be replaced by only one person in the room. Incidentally, you are more than welcome to stay and listen to the subsequent session. I invite the next panel to join us.
Examination of witnesses
Sue Ferns, Charlotte Childs and Simon Coop gave evidence.
The Chair
I welcome all three of our witnesses to this evidence session of the Bill Committee. Rather than me introducing you, it might be more sensible if you introduce yourselves in a moment. We have until 11.25 am for this session, and at 11.25, even if you are speaking, I will close the session at that moment, through no discourtesy but because the rules of the House state that we must stop at precisely 11.25. Starting with Mr Coop, as he is here, will you kindly all introduce yourselves? And if you have any introductory remarks about the Bill, that is always very helpful.
Simon Coop: My name is Simon Coop. I am acting national officer for energy and utilities at Unite the union.
Sue Ferns: My name is Sue Ferns and I am the senior deputy general secretary at the Prospect trade union.
Charlotte Childs: I am Charlotte Childs. I am national officer for the GMB trade union.
The Chair
Thank you all very much for being here. We will start with Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition and Dr Whitehead.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Sue Ferns: Certainly. At the moment, Springfields nuclear fuels faces a bit of a crisis, primarily due to the earlier than expected rundown and closure of the AGR—advanced gas-cooled reactor—fleet, which has been its major component of fuel manufacture, not the only but the major one. The effect of that is that from January of next year it will be producing only 55 tonnes of AGR fuel, compared with a normal load of about 200 tonnes. That obviously has implications for the workforce and it means that that plant will be operating in deficit as from January of next year.
There have been protracted discussions over the course of the year. We have seen two rounds of redundancy notices issued to the skilled and specialist staff on the site, and there is a danger, in the face of continued uncertainty, that more of those specialist skills and expertise will be lost.
I should say that fuel manufacturing is the key function of Springfields nuclear fuels but there is also much wider expertise. It provides a range of other services to the nuclear industry and is seen as a key part of the UK’s nuclear expertise. We very much fear for the future and are in active discussions with the company and Government about that.
There is both a short-term and a longer-term challenge, and a longer-term opportunity. If more nuclear power stations are constructed in the UK, we can see a good fuel load for Springfields from about 10 years’ time onwards, but the problem is that unless we solve the short-term hiatus in fuel orders, those skills and expertise will be lost and will not be easily recovered, if at all. The opportunity is for Springfields, as it was recognised in the nuclear sector deal, to continue as a centre of nuclear excellence and expertise as our unique UK fuel manufacturing capability, able to provide fuel to reactors in the UK of all types, and potentially to plants in other parts of Europe as well.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Charlotte Childs: The conversations that we have had with EDF in terms of building a nuclear supply chain, and the skills required to build both of those projects, and further projects, mean that the decision on the RAB funding model, hopefully leading towards a final investment decision in the near future, creates a really great opportunity for the timelines of those projects to line up, and for the skilled workforce who are needed at Hinkley Point to just about finish what they are doing there in time to move over to Sizewell. It creates certainty for the nuclear supply chain and for those who have gone through a training programme with Hinkley.
We have negotiated some industry-leading processes to ensure that people from the local area can go from low to no qualifications into qualified trades and apprenticeships. It creates an ongoing opportunity for those people and job security that we do not generally see in the construction sector. Time is of the essence. To maximise the benefit for the nuclear supply chain and drive down costs, because it is already in place, it is imperative that those decisions are made sooner rather than later.
Simon Coop: I reiterate those points. With regard to Hinkley Point C, it is really a no-brainer to adapt those transferrable skills and move them into Sizewell C in order to ensure that costs do not spiral out of control. There is a clear model already in use that we can learn from to move into Sizewell C. The timing of that transfer is of the essence in ensuring that we do not lose the skills from one project and that we develop and move them forward into Sizewell C. Urgency is needed to move that project forward as soon as possible in order to maintain the skills from Hinkley Point at Sizewell C. Any kind of developments have to be in line with industry standards, and we also have to make sure that any misgivings or fore learnings that we establish from Hinkley Point C are clearly ironed out as we move forward to Sizewell C. The replica gives us the opportunity not just to learn from what we have done but at Sizewell C to improve and iron out any problems that we have had to maximise value for money for all vested parties.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Simon Coop: The UK workforce are absolutely flexible and they are highly skilled. In construction, the same key workers with the key skills have moved to projects. I do not see that being a major problem in future construction projects. As a result of talking to the company, there are already plans to transfer the operational skills at Hinkley Point B to Hinkley Point C. Those operational skills are currently transferring and people are keen to move on and use those skills at the Hinkley Point C project. There should be no difference in terms of transfer to future construction projects.
Alan Brown
Q
Charlotte Childs: We are a member of that organisation, so the letter you received and the policy that we have set is based on a wide-ranging discussion with our members. In response to your suggestion about investment in manufacturing, it is not a this or that situation, is it? Scotland in particular has benefited greatly from the current nuclear civil generation, and the zero carbon generated by Torness and Hunterston B have contributed to southern Scotland consistently hitting the 2030 target, working alongside other renewables like wind to provide green energy. Without heavy investment in new nuclear projects we will not reach our net zero targets, and Scotland has set itself an even more ambitious target of 2045 to reach net zero. That simply will not be possible without having a consistent and reliable baseload that is net zero in its production of energy.
Alan Brown
Q
Charlotte Childs: Those alternates do not exist yet and will not do so for a long time. The technology is not there in the short term to reach the targets that have been set in the near future. It is also about investing in UK skills and jobs, and the existing nuclear supply chain—Sue spoke of Springfields and the nuclear supply chain in place to deliver Hinkley Point C. As Simon and I have said, we need to ensure that the decisions are taken decisively and quickly to protect those supply chain jobs. The supply chain for wind, for example, which you have suggested in the past is a viable alternative to nuclear, is not within the UK. We have the skills and the capability, but we are currently importing turbine parts and steel from China to create the wind turbine fields that are currently being constructed. The £20 billion is a lot of money, but it will create an inordinate number of skills, prospects and social changes for the local area around Sizewell, as well as for the wider UK workforce and supply chain.
Alan Brown
Q
Sue Ferns: If you do not mind, I just want to add to what Charlotte has said. Our analysis shows that investment in nuclear is more jobs-rich than investment in other low-carbon technologies. We have done some work, based on Office for National Statistics data, that shows that each installed megawatt of nuclear capacity supports roughly 4.7 direct and indirect jobs, compared with 1.5 in offshore wind and 1.1 in solar. I would be happy to share that analysis with you if it is of interest.
Alan Brown
I have seen that—I know some of it is up for debate. It is also about operational jobs. I will happily discuss that further.
The Chair
Great. Unless there are any further questions from Members or our witnesses have anything particular to say that they have not said—I see no indication that that is the case—I thank our three witnesses very much indeed for their time before the Committee. Their evidence will be useful in our deliberations over the next couple of weeks, when we will consider the detail of the Bill. I call the Whip to move the motion to adjourn.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Craig Whittaker)
I beg to move—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Q
Charlotte Childs: Apologies, but while I have this audience I want to touch quickly on the industrial relations model that we have in place at Hinkley Point. The benefit that it is creating for the workforce there could be transferred to Sizewell C, and amendments could be made to the Bill to entrench that within the process. We have a joint project board set up at Hinkley Point B, and the unions have an influential voice within it. A committee was also set up on site to deliver results for our members in industrial relations and health and safety, and we are putting agreements in place for the terms and conditions of those building the plant, and agreements are under discussion for those who will be operating the plant once it is finished.
It would be prudent for those who make the decisions to make amendments that require the nuclear company, as it were, to recognise established sector trade unions, and to embed union access—or the requirement for union access—into the Bill, not just for the client and the tier 1 contractors, but for second and third-tier contractors, as we have on the HS2 project. The nuclear company should have regard to the security of its supply chain, and figures on UK content should be published.
The access that we have on Hinkley Point has created an environment where the GMB in particular is able to have really in-depth discussions with the client and tier 1 contractors on things such as equality and diversity and inclusion. We are currently working on projects to encourage women into the construction sector at Hinkley Point and to create an environment that will be welcoming and encouraging to women who want to come into the sector. Given the skills gap the construction sector currently faces and is heading towards, it is important that that work is done with both employer and trade unions to ensure that we get that right for the workforce. While I had the floor, I wanted to suggest that union access was put into the Bill.
The Chair
Q
Simon Coop: On the investment question, which I did not respond to at the time, it does seem significant, but in order to have balanced UK energy security moving forward, that investment has to be put in place. There is no doubt, as we look at the streams of nuclear energy, that a fleet of nuclear energy is needed, and this Bill should not be just in line with Sizewell C; it should be a Bill that moves forward a nuclear fleet. We are in a position where, by 2025 and 2030, there will be clear problems in nuclear generation, as six stations will be coming off stream at that point in time. For a clear, balanced energy policy, nuclear, along with renewables, solar and wind, has to be a part of that—not just as a back-up situation, as some people state, but as an integral part of the UK’s energy moving forward. That has to be key.
On collective bargaining and union agreements on sites, there is no doubt that unions build clear relations and the highest health and safety standards, which in turn will definitely mean that any project has more chance of succeeding within budget because of the clear integrity of the health and safety situations through joint agreements.
The Chair
Thank you very much.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)
Subsidy Control Bill (Ninth sitting)
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members are expected to wear face coverings except when speaking, unless exempt, and to maintain distancing as far as possible. This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Members should have a covid lateral flow test twice a week, which can be carried out either at the testing centre in Portcullis House or at home.
Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Officials in the Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Clause 65
Monitoring and reporting on subsidy control
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 65, page 37, line 12, leave out “fifth” and insert “second”.
This amendment, and Amendment 30, together require that the CMA publish a report after two years, and annually thereafter.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 61, in clause 65, page 37, line 12, leave out “fifth” and insert “third”.
This amendment would require the CMA to conduct its first review under the section in the third year after commencement.
Amendment 30, in clause 65, page 37, line 14, leave out “five years” and insert “one year”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 29.
Amendment 62, in clause 65, page 37, line 14, leave out “five” and insert “three”.
This amendment would require the CMA to prepare a subsequent review every three years.
Kirsty Blackman
Thank you, Mr Sharma, for your dedication in chairing the Committee, no matter how much we talk. It is appreciated that you continue to show up.
Amendment 29 would work in conjunction with amendment 30 on Competition and Markets Authority monitoring. The measures on subsidy control are new, and we do not know how they are going to work. We do not know how well subsidy control is going to work. It is therefore really important that the CMA reports on a regular basis.
I have had various arguments with Treasury Ministers about tax measures. Treasury Ministers have generally made it clear to me that tax measures are reviewed on a regular basis. Unfortunately, it is impossible to find what “regular” means. It is impossible to pin it down. It is impossible to work out when tax measures are actually reviewed and to see, in any sensible way, any evidence of that. I have previously asked Ministers on Delegated Legislation Committees, for example, to commit to writing to the members of a Committee in the future, when the tax measure under discussion is reviewed, but the Government continue to fail to do so.
I am concerned that the Government’s ability to be transparent on subsidy control measures needs to be in the Bill. The amendment addresses the CMA monitoring report, rather than the Government report, but the CMA will deal with the monitoring and reporting of subsidy control. I hope that the Government will also be reviewing measures, in addition to the CMA’s monitoring and reporting, and will be checking to see how subsidy control is working and whether the Bill is working as intended. As we have previously said though, we have significant concerns about the lack of data that will be provided and the fact that we cannot effectively monitor all the subsidies that are given because of the lack of requirement for granting authorities to register all of those subsidies, or even subsidies over a sensible threshold—the threshold as set is too high.
Amendment 29 would ensure that the CMA’s first report occurs two years, rather than five years, after subsidy control begins. Given the newness of the regime—it is being created and implemented for the first time in autumn next year—we need to know how things are going and we need to know that more quickly than in two or even three Parliaments, depending on how quickly elections are called. Five years is about three parliamentary terms, if we go by recent times. Some people would even say that five years is a generation.
Five years is too long for the initial report. Following that, five years for the subsequent report is also too long. Amendment 30 suggests that the report should be pulled together annually, rather than every five years. That would greatly improve transparency. The Government have been clear that this is a permissive structure that will encourage people to act in the best interests of economic development and improving their areas. I do not think we can properly assess that if we get a report on this from the CMA only every five years rather than more regularly. The Opposition’s amendments to the clause would similarly reduce the length of time between reports; they have been slightly more flexible than I have, but I support the aim of their amendments—to reduce the term from five years.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Sharma. I thank you for continuing to turn up to our ongoing and extensive deliberations. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for her comments. She is right that we have tabled a coincidentally similar amendment to hers. I support all the arguments she made. She is right that the Opposition amendment suggested slightly greater flexibility than the SNP amendment, partly because of our thinking on how long it might take to actually get the information to be able to add more meaningful assessments and recommendations to the monitoring of and reporting on subsidy control.
The clause rightly requires the CMA to undertake a periodic review of the effectiveness of the Bill’s operation and its impact on competition and investment in the UK. The Secretary of State may also direct the CMA to prepare a report in respect of a specified period. I am not fully sure whether that allows for some flexibility if issues are identified; perhaps the Minister can respond to that point. However, the review is important because the new regime contains many significant differences from the EU state aid rules in the processes that we will follow. Those processes, which I think have the support of the House, require safeguards to be in place, because they are not in place in a system in which some of the review and scrutiny is done up front. We cannot embark on this without making sure that there are safeguards on the use of public funds, adequate scrutiny measures and a system for learning what works well and what may not. For example, there may be a learning curve for public authorities, businesses and the Government alike, so it is important that the regime is subject to this regular review. It is good practice and it is important for value for money, for accountability to the taxpayer and to assess the effectiveness of the regime and make any necessary changes.
It is important that the regime is subject to regular review. I think we are joined here in the view that five years is not regular enough, particularly given the very good example of having three elections in five years. Politics is not always certain, yet we want that certainty to be in place. We want the learning to be fast cycle; it is good practice to learn in a more fast-cycle way. Perhaps the Minister could clarify why this time period was selected. Five years would effectively provide for one report per Parliament, assuming that we have a five-year Parliament.
What is more, five years is a significant amount of time to have passed before the first review of the effectiveness of the operation of the regime. There could be significant inefficiencies that cause substantive negative effects within that timeframe, and Parliament would be none the wiser without that informed view and assessment from the CMA. Labour tabled amendments 61 and 62 to reduce the reporting period laid out in clause 65 to every three years, which would allow for enough data to come through and for a cycle of meaningful reports that could take into account recommendations for change and assess how effectively the intended outcomes had been delivered. As a minimum, that is a more appropriate timeframe for reviewing the new regime. I would be grateful to know whether deciding on five years followed discussions with the CMA. If those discussions did happen, what was the CMA’s feedback? Engaging with the CMA is important, and there may be the need for challenge if Parliament has a different view.
As well as giving Governments more opportunity to make changes to the regime, including legislative changes and process improvements, any problems with the regime would be resolved considerably earlier because, let’s face it, if we have five years to do something, it may be left until the last minute. We want to ensure that Parliament is also responsive to any changes and plays its part in ensuring that the regime, and any changes, can be reviewed effectively every three years.
I hope the Minister recognises why five years is too long a reporting period, takes on board the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and her party and those from Labour, and perhaps offers some feedback to the Committee on why five years was suggested. Does the Minister recognise our arguments, and would he be prepared to include a review in the later stages of the Bill?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. As we have heard, clause 65 requires the CMA to produce a report on the overall effectiveness of the regime and its impact on competition and investment within the UK. The monitoring report is to be produced in relation to the first five years following the Bill’s commencement and for every subsequent five-year period. That interval was chosen specifically as an appropriate length of time over which to consider the wider impacts of the regime as a whole and to evaluate its overall effectiveness during a period in which a sizeable number of subsidies would be given, so that the medium-term effects could be properly considered and evaluated.
The period is consistent with the maximum length of a parliamentary term, as we have heard, ensuring that there is a regime-wide assessment of the regime at least every normal parliamentary term. Producing such a report is a significant undertaking, requiring a good amount of time to gather and analyse the evidence. Five years strikes the right balance between the time needed to observe how the new regime is working and the benefit of timely analysis and evaluation.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I appreciate his comments. However, he has not explained whether periods of time other than five years were assessed, and has not yet explained—perhaps he will—whether the CMA was involved in the discussions. Given the work of the subsidy advice unit and all the other work going on, producing a report every three years will not be too onerous if it is part of business as usual. What consideration has been given to other time periods?
Perhaps the Minister can also clarify something. Does he see that if a report arrives in year four of a Parliament and some legislative changes are required and then we have an election, that would not be a sensible way of running a regime that requires some interplay between Parliament and the devolved Administrations? More frequent reporting at three years, which is not too onerous—it is as long as it takes to complete a common degree—would make a difference and allow for changes to be brought through.
Paul Scully
To be fair, I had only just started making my remarks. However, whether it is butting up against elections or not, that could equally be the case in three years as well as five years. However, five years was chosen, as I said, basically to correspond roughly with the standard parliamentary term; it gives a good amount of time for good and meaningful data to be collected and analysed; and it is also consistent with the monitoring reports of other bodies, such as the Office for the Internal Market.
Clearly, we work with the CMA on this issue and other issues. The CMA will work on the subsidy control regime in the future; we work with it very closely. In the evidence session, Rachel Merelie talked about the fact that there may be merit in the CMA providing advice more frequently at the request of the Secretary of State, and that is exactly what is set out in the Bill, so that the frequency of reporting can be changed, which I will come on to shortly.
We have heard that the various amendments will reduce the key periods, down to either two years or three years, depending on the particular amendment. I will cover the amendments in turn.
First of all, amendment 29 would require the initial monitoring report to be produced within two years of the Bill gaining Royal Assent, as opposed to within five years. Well, I have talked about the fact that five years would normally be the appropriate timeframe, so that the wider evidence and the consequences can be properly considered. I agree that circumstances might arise that could make it beneficial for any monitoring report on the new control regime to be produced within a shorter timeframe. That is why clause 65(4) says:
“The Secretary of State may direct the CMA to prepare a report in relation to a specified period.”
And the Secretary of State will provide the means for an earlier report if it should be considered necessary. Therefore, I believe that amendment 29 is unnecessary.
Amendment 30 relates to the reporting frequency. Again, I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for more frequent reporting. However, reducing the interval between the reports by the subsidy advice unit to one year is not necessary and could divert resource from other important activities.
Equating more frequent monitoring reports with improved scrutiny and transparency might seem attractive, but in reality it could well have an effect opposite to that intended by the hon. Member, resulting in more superficial reports, which would be less useful in assessing the overall effectiveness of the subsidy regime.
Clause 66 already requires the subsidy advice unit to provide annual reports to Parliament, in order to provide transparency in referral cases that it has handled throughout the year. The monitoring reports set out in clause 65 go beyond that, covering the functioning of the whole regime and not just the specific role of the subsidy advice unit. By necessity, those reports take longer to produce, so that there is sufficient quality data for the subsidy advice unit to consider.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It may seem tempting to wrap all this stuff in lots of scrutiny, but does my hon. Friend agree that red tape costs money? Wrapping the economy in red tape costs money. Ultimately, the cost of that has to be borne by the taxpayer. He is absolutely right to say that at any point in time the Secretary of State could ask the CMA to consider whether there is any evidence of problems with the provisions in the Bill. Better to have that arrangement than simply to ask for review after review, for which there will be a cost to the taxpayer.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as usual; we do not want reviews for the sake of reviews. It is good to have a focus, but it is also good to be able to look at the meaningful evidence rather than distract attention and resource from what may be important scrutiny by the subsidy advice unit itself in its day-to-day work. Such reviews would obviously put pressure on public authorities and the awarders as well.
It is important that we ensure that the unit has sufficient time to collate and analyse the evidence. Reducing the amount of time available to produce these monitoring reports would only result in less useful reports, as there would not be good enough quality data available for the unit to assess, nor sufficient time for it to collect and analyse the data that is available. And it would indeed divert resources away from the subsidy advice unit’s other functions, which could, for example, reduce the capacity to accept voluntary referral requests from public authorities.
Amendments 61 and 62, which are meant to be considered together, were tabled by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston. They are obviously very similar to amendments 29 and 30, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North.
Amendment 61 would require the subsidy advice unit’s initial monitoring report to be produced within three years of the Bill gaining Royal Assent, as opposed to within five years. I have already said that five years would normally be the appropriate timeframe. However, I agree that in some situations it would be beneficial for the monitoring report to be produced within a shorter timeframe. For that reason, we already have the powers set out in clause 65(4). As I have already said, clause 65(4) says that
“The Secretary of State may direct the CMA to prepare a report in relation to a specified period”,
should that be necessary. As such, I believe that amendment 61 is unnecessary.
Kirsty Blackman
I want to address a few things that have been mentioned. It is absolutely the case that clause 66 requires annual reporting, but that annual reporting is on a very limited number of things. It seems to me that only numbers need to be provided, and that that reporting does not include very much else. The requirement is, “How many post-award referrals have there been, and how has the CMA dealt with them?” rather than, “Have they been dealt with properly?” It is not as much of a deep dive as it could be.
The Minister could commit to a step in between those two approaches. Clause 65 gives the Secretary of State flexibility to direct a report to be made within a shorter period. The middle step would allow an annual report to address more than just the data while not going quite as far as the requirements under clause 65 for a review of the entire scheme’s efficacy and whether it is working as intended. It would be interesting to hear whether the Minister would consider that.
Turning to the various other things that have been said, the Brexit vote was only five and a half years ago—which is not much longer than the five-year period—and before that we had no idea that we would be creating our own subsidy control regime. We have moved so far, and so much has happened over that period of time, that I do not think a five-year period is short enough. I appreciate the Minister’s comments about the possibility of the Secretary of State directing a report for an earlier period, particularly initially, but clause 65(3)(a) could have said that the period should be three or two years. If that had been written in the Bill in the first place, we would have had fewer concerns like the ones we are raising today.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said that red tape costs money. He is right, but red tape also saves money, and the whole point of this Bill is that public money is going to be given to organisations. Public money is going to be spent, and we need to make sure that that money is spent effectively, but I do not think that the suggested review system is adequate enough to ensure that we spend that public money effectively. Yes, this review would cost money—I am not for a second trying to dodge that fact—but I think that the benefits outweigh the risks, in that this is such a new regime and it will be really important for us to carry out that review at a relatively early stage. I am not asking for it to be done in six months; I am suggesting two years for the initial review, and the Opposition are suggesting three years. Neither is as long as five years, which will give us the early comfort of knowing that the regime is acting in the way that we hope and expect it will do.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady’s amendment does not say “two years”, though, does it? It says:
“two years, and annually thereafter.”
That sounds like a huge amount of bureaucracy. She said that it would be a lighter-touch report, but I do not see anything in the amendment that says it is a lighter-touch report. It talks about the effectiveness of the provisions, so how would it not end up being a deep dive into the workings of the scheme?
Kirsty Blackman
I apologise—I did not make myself clear. When I talk about a lighter-touch report, I am talking not specifically about the amendments but about the fact that there should be a third approach in the Bill. If the Government are not going to move from five years—if the five-year reporting period for this deep dive report is going to remain—and we have the annual reports suggested in clause 66, which are too light touch and are just about the numbers, there is a case to be made for a middle step: a report that contains a little bit more than just the numbers, but not quite as much as that potentially costly review. That is not covered by the amendments; I am simply suggesting that the Minister consider it.
Paul Scully
I think the middle way that the hon. Member is talking about is actually what clause 66 does. The clause notes the bare minimum of what that the annual report should include. There is plenty more that the CMA can and should include—we are giving it the bare minimum.
Kirsty Blackman
That is a hugely helpful clarification. If parliamentarians or anyone else do not believe that the data included in the annual report is transparent enough, the Minister is open to us writing to the Secretary of State to request that it include more information.
The Minister has been clear throughout the course of our deliberations that a number of the changes made by the Bill are about ensuring that things can be done at speed. The tax measures and other things that were put in place because of covid had to be done very quickly—nobody is disagreeing with that—but such an approach can result in unforeseen circumstances. As such, if something started and finished during the course of a five-year period, we would not know anything about its efficacy. We would not know whether it had made a difference in the way intended until significantly after it had ended.
The Secretary of State has the ability to require those additional things. If specific funding is going to be put in place for natural disasters, for example, or any other issue we have discussed, it would be helpful if the Minister would consider asking the CMA to do an additional report, asking: “Did this work as intended? Did the funding subsidy for natural disasters achieve its aims? Could it have been done through means other than subsidies? Was there a requirement for it to comply with everything in these provisions? Would it have been easier if they had not had to jump through certain hoops in order for the subsidy to be given more quickly?”
I think that this provision does not go far enough. The Minister’s clarification about clause 66 is really helpful, and I am sure that both the Opposition and my party will continue to suggest areas where transparency could and should be improved. We will take our opportunity as parliamentarians to lobby the Government, and if there are specific concerns or issues that we believe require a report, we will request that such a report be undertaken. I wish to press amendment 29 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 65, page 37, line 16, at end insert—
“(4A) In preparing any report under this section, the CMA must consult—
(a) the Secretary of State;
(b) the Scottish Ministers;
(c) the Welsh Ministers; and
(d) the Department of Economy in Northern Ireland.”
This amendment would require the CMA to consult with the Secretary of State and Devolved Administrations before preparing any report under this section.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 64, in clause 65, page 37, line 27, at end insert—
“(7A) The CMA must arrange for a copy of a report prepared under this section to be laid before the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment would require the CMA to lay a copy of its reports before the devolved parliaments and assemblies.
Seema Malhotra
We return to a familiar theme, which is the absence of any clear role for the devolved Administrations and the failure to recognise the need for a truly four-nation approach. Yet again, the clause fails to provide a role for the devolved Administrations in the CMA consultations and report.
The Government seem not to have quite grasped the fact that the new subsidy regime will affect not just England, but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. All nations should contribute to the review of the effectiveness of the regime and its impact on competition and investment within the UK, as all four nations will be affected. In fact, given that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have to implement not just what is in the Bill, but the many future regulations to be made by the Secretary of State, it is equally important that all voices are heard. Already, the devolved Administrations will not be included in defining many regulations; will not be able to call in subsidies or make post-award referrals; will not have automatic standing to challenge subsidies before the Competition Appeal Tribunal; and may not even be represented on the body that oversees the new regime—unless the Government are enlightened by discussion in Committee and the main Chamber, and with what is happening with the Office for the Internal Market.
Will the Minister explain what role he sees the devolved Administrations playing in the new regime and in the monitoring and review? Daniel Greenberg, Parliamentary Counsel for Domestic Legislation, said in the evidence session that
“when you are dealing with international obligations of the UK, that has to be dealt with by central Government but, again, doesn’t that have to be done in consultation with the devolved Administrations? Of course it does. With co-ordination with the devolved Administrations? Of course it does. With mechanisms for encoding that co-ordination and consultation into the way the Bill operates? Of course.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 61, Q80.]
The Labour party agrees completely with that, which is why we have consistently sought to amend the Bill to increase the role and voice of the devolved Administrations.
There have been fewer occasions on which Labour has wanted to increase the voice of the Secretary of State under the legislation, but clause 65 is one place where we think that might be important. The amendment would therefore require the CMA to consult both the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations before issuing a periodic review of the regime. In particular, the CMA would find the inclusion of their voices helpful as it deliberates the impact of the regime on competition and investment across the UK.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the hon. Member for her indulgence. There is no need for me to speak to the amendments, but I wholeheartedly support them. The Scottish National party will back them should they be pressed to a vote.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for her support.
Speaking to amendment 64, once the CMA has prepared its report, clause 65(7) requires the CMA to arrange for a copy of it to be laid before Parliament. We welcome the opportunity that that will provide for the UK Parliament to scrutinise the reports. Given the impact of the regime on the devolved Administrations, however, why will the report not also be laid before the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, thereby giving them the opportunity to undertake detailed scrutiny? There might be a technical reason for that, but certainly the feedback that we have received is that laying reports before the Administrations would enable more formal scrutiny of them. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on that.
Amendment 64 would require the CMA to put a copy of its report before the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly, which would provide each of the legislatures with a clear ability to scrutinise the CMA report and therefore the effectiveness and impact of the regime.
Paul Scully
As we have already discussed, clause 65 sets out the requirement for the unit to produce a report on the overall effectiveness of the subsidy control regime and its impact on competition and investment. Outside the broad content of the report, the Bill provides that the unit can draw upon powers set out in sections 41 to 43 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to gather information from public authorities, businesses and other persons in the service of producing its monitoring report.
In addition to the information-gathering powers of the 2020 Act, the unit can draw on other existing provisions that the CMA has under the Enterprise Act 2002 to engage with a wide range of stakeholders, and even commission new research in order to meet its statutory duties. Outside of those specific provisions, it is intended that the subsidy advice unit will have discretion on how to approach its monitoring functions.
We have heard that amendment 63 would require the subsidy advice unit to specifically consult the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland in preparing a report. In preparing its monitoring report, the subsidy advice unit will want to seek information from public authorities across the UK, both in their capacity as subsidy granters and in relation to their various policy-making roles. That will be necessary in order to develop a balanced view of the function of the regime and its impact on competition and investment.
Highlighting the role of the Secretary of State and their contemporaries in the Bill gives rise to the question why other parties have been omitted. Why not also specify, for example, that the subsidy advice unit should consult regulators, businesses or their representative groups, or any number of other specific persons? The reason we have not specified individuals with whom the subsidy advice unit must engage is so as to afford it the maximum flexibility to undertake its monitoring function appropriately and as it thinks fit. The unit can also draw on the wealth of institutional knowledge that the CMA has, specifically related to the protection of competition. It is therefore unnecessary to direct the unit’s subsidy monitoring functions in the way intended by the amendment.
Amendment 64 also concerns the subsidy advice unit’s relationship with devolved Administrations in the fulfilment of its duties, and would require that its regime monitoring reports be laid before the relevant legislatures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, in addition to the UK Parliament. Hon. Members will undoubtedly point to the example of the Office for the Internal Market’s reports on the functioning of the UK internal market, which are laid before all four UK Parliaments.
Although the Office for the Internal Market also falls under the umbrella of the CMA, it is a uniquely constituted body reflecting the specific role and relationships that it has with the Administrations in all four UK countries. We have consciously not followed the governance model established by the Office for the Internal Market for the subsidy advice unit. Subsidy control is and will remain a reserved policy matter. The subsidy advice unit will be formed as part of the CMA, a non-ministerial department that serves the whole of the UK. It is therefore appropriate that the CMA and, by extension, the subsidy advice unit reports to the whole UK Parliament.
Kirsty Blackman
May I ask the Minister—sorry if I missed it—to say explicitly whether he would expect the CMA to consult the devolved Administrations in the preparation of the five-year report?
Paul Scully
As an awarding body, I fully expect the CMA and subsidy advice unit to speak to all the devolved nations as well as public authorities. That does not specifically need to be in the Bill, for the reasons I have given about excluding others. Given that subsidy control is and will remain a reserved policy matter, it is right that the UK Parliament considers and scrutinises the report. I therefore request that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston withdraw the amendment.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. The devolved Administrations are distinct from other institutions because they are democratic institutions. For a regime that has to be accountable, it is important that the voice of those bodies and of Ministers, and others who may well have a view, are consulted. It is important to distinguish democratic institutions from others. The Minister is right that there will be a whole range of people who may want to contribute their views, and I am sure that the CMA will find a mechanism for seeking views.
I want to push amendment 63 to a vote because if this is something that should be done anyway, we want to ensure that it is done. Making sure at key stages that the voice of the devolved Administrations, and indeed of the Secretary of State, are formally heard will add significant insight to what will be in that report. We want that report to be the best it can be.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 65, page 37, line 27, at end insert—
“(7A) Within 30 working days of a report being laid under subsection (7), the Secretary of State must make a statement to the House of Commons explaining what action will be taken to remedy any deficiencies in the effectiveness of the operation of the Act or impact of the operation of the Act on competition and investment within the United Kingdom identified by the CMA.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House of Commons on the CMA’s findings and any remedial action required.
I will keep my comments brief. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House of Commons on the CMA’s findings and any remedial action required. It does not take a genius to recognise that reviews alone are not enough; they need to be acted on. Yet there are no provisions in the Bill that we have seen that require the Secretary of State to act in response to the findings of the CMA’s reports, or even to consider whether action is necessary to remediate any deficiencies in the regime identified by the CMA. Does the Minister agree that this seems to be a significant gap?
If the report and reviews under clause 65 do not trigger at the very least an obligation for the Secretary of State to consider and have due regard to its findings, are we not missing quite an important step in the overall process of review and improvement of the regime? That is why we have tabled amendment 65, which states that within 30 days of the report being laid under clause 65, the Secretary of State must make a statement to the House explaining what their response is and what action may be taken to address any deficiencies highlighted in the report. That would ensure that any issues with the new regime were not only raised, but actively considered. As the regulation currently stands, problems identified by the CMA may continue undebated and unaddressed.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a couple of other comments and suggestions. The laying before Parliament is, as has been said, a limited way in which parliamentarians can interact with the report. It is great that it is being laid before Parliament, but a ministerial statement, whether written or oral, would help in not just raising the profile of the report published by the CMA, but making clear what the Government intend to do about any deficiencies that have been created. Alternatively, there could be a requirement in the legislation—I might think about this for Report—for the report to go before the Public Accounts Committee or the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, whichever would be more relevant, in order that it could scrutinise the report and ensure that it was taking evidence and creating a report with recommendations to the Government on what needs to be changed.
If the reporting period is to be only every five years, I assume that there will not be immediate—as soon as the report comes through—change happening and that it is likely that there will be a mulling-over period once the report comes in, so that, as the Minister said, the medium-term changes and so on can be assessed and any changes can be made to the legislation. In that case, a written statement or an oral statement being made, whereby we could ask any questions that we needed to, or a more in-depth report by one of the parliamentary Select Committees, would mean that Parliament had a stake, Parliament was invested, and Parliament was assisting in making the changes that the CMA required or in suggesting how to make the changes.
I am sure that the Minister would be the first to admit that the Government do not have every one of the answers. They may have a lot of the answers, in his view, but they do not have every one of the answers, and that is why consultation is hugely important with external organisations but also with those of us who are elected to scrutinise legislation, to scrutinise what the Government are doing, and to try to make the most appropriate changes so that things work, in the interest of spending public money appropriately but also in the interests of our constituents and the people of the UK.
Paul Scully
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North is absolutely right to want to improve the system. That is exactly the incentive; we need to improve the system. A number of mechanisms are available already. The BEIS Committee and the Public Accounts Committee can indeed call the report in and consider it, and there are urgent questions and any number of other mechanisms. I understand and appreciate the suggestions. There are mechanisms there.
The main purpose of the function of reporting, as I have said, is to provide a measure of objective scrutiny for the regime. Parliamentarians can consider the report and feed into the process of monitoring and continuous improvement of the regime, as can Government themselves. That objective assessment, based on the information that has been gathered, will be a really valuable and transparent mechanism to demonstrate what is working and what may require improvement. It will of course fall to the Government to provide a suitable response to any issues identified by the report.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston would put in place an arbitrary and constraining time limit of 30 days within which the Secretary of State must assess the findings from the unit’s monitoring report and then provide details for addressing any potential issues. Without prejudicing what the content of any future monitoring report might be, it seems unlikely that this amendment would have the effect of promoting effective and well considered changes if they were required, because the amendment, by tying the Government’s hands in this way, would risk hurried and ineffective solutions to any issues identified by the SAU. The monitoring reports will represent the culmination of many months of work by the SAU, so it is right that the Government should respond appropriately. However, arbitrary, short deadlines are not likely to promote sensible changes, especially if there is a need for substantive change.
This amendment also offers little benefit in relation to improving the transparency of the regime. First, monitoring reports will already be published for all to see. Secondly, many of the tools provided by the Bill require further scrutiny by Parliament through the means of affirmative regulations, which require debate and, ultimately, the agreement of parliamentarians in both Houses before they can be enacted. Transparency is one of the cornerstones of the new subsidy regime, and continuous improvement is one of the essential principles of good governance. The amendment would do nothing to enhance either of those aims and may in fact prove detrimental to them by forcing an artificially rushed response to the SAU’s finding. I therefore request that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston withdraw the amendment.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. On the basis of some of the discussion, and the suggestion about what role Select Committees might play, issues with the report are perhaps something we can review and discuss offline with the Minister. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause requires the subsidy advice unit periodically to review and report on the effectiveness of the operation of the subsidy control regime and its impact on competition and investment. This report should be prepared every five years, or more frequently if requested by the Secretary of State. This review mechanism will ensure that the new subsidy control regime continues to operate effectively, based on experience of how it is working in practice and the impact it is having on competition and investment. The report will be published by the SAU and laid before Parliament.
Seema Malhotra
This is an important clause and we support its standing part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 66
CMA Annual Report
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 66, page 37, line 40, at end insert—
“(d) the proportion of subsidies and schemes in each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in relation to which the CMA found that the public authority’s assessment under section 52(2)(d) or 56(2)(d) required improvement;
(e) the proportion of subsidies and schemes in each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in relation to which the CMA identified a risk of negative effects on competition or investment within the United Kingdom;
(f) information on the geographical allocation of subsidies, including the total value of subsidies subject to mandatory and voluntary notification in the preceding 12 months that have been awarded to enterprises in each nation, region and local authority within the United Kingdom;
(g) the number of extensions to the reporting period made under section 53(6) at the request of the CMA and the average number of days of those extensions;
(h) the number of voluntary referrals made under section 56(1);and
(i) the number of those voluntary referrals in relation to which the CMA has given notice under section 57(2) that it has decided not to prepare a report.”.
This amendment would require the CMA to include the additional specified information in its annual report.
Clause 66 sets out the information that the CMA must include in its annual reports. It is connected in some regards to the debate that we have just had. Although we support the mandating of specific information to be included in the annual reports, the information required feels too high-level and not sufficiently detailed or useful. The clause envisages the CMA simply listing the subsidies and schemes in relation to which it has prepared reports. The Minister may explain what he expects in the annual report.
We believe that, first, the annual report should include information on the number of subsidies and schemes in relation to which the CMA found that public authority assessments required improvements. In doing so, the review would provide an assessment of how successfully public authorities are meeting their statutory obligations under the legislation.
Secondly, the report should include information on the subsidies and schemes that the CMA reviewed and found risked having a negative effect on competition and investment within the UK’s internal market. That would ensure that not only the House but the taxpayer and the devolved Administrations are made aware of what, where and how subsidies are putting pressure on the UK’s internal market, if that is happening.
Thirdly, the report should include information on the geographical spread of subsidies that the CMA considered in the last reporting period, as well as information on the value of subsidies that have been awarded to enterprises in each region, nation and local authority in the UK. We are used to statistics and information being available at a fairly granular level. This is important and significant, given that, despite our best attempts, the Bill currently provides no information or regulation on how subsidies and schemes will work to reduce economic inequality across the United Kingdom.
If the Government really believe in levelling up, they need to take action to match what they say. The new regime, and subsidies generally, can provide an important opportunity for channelling resources to deprived areas and reducing regional and intra-regional inequality. As the Bill currently stands, however, there are no regulations in place that actively allow for that. As Professor Fothergill, the national director of the Industrial Communities Alliance, explained:
“In certain places, if we really are serious about levelling up, we have to put more resources into that effort, and we have to use state aid as one of the tools for delivering new jobs.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 11, Q7.]
Does the Minister recognise that the contents of the Bill do not currently match up with the levelling-up rhetoric? Does he agree that subsidies can be used and could make a significant impact by supporting and aiding deprived areas? Including information on the geographical spread of subsidies could be quite an effective and efficient way of providing some insight about whether the resources under the regime are working to reduce inequality, which would surely be of help to the Government in achieving their stated goals.
We believe that the CMA’s annual report should include information that would allow the CMA’s resourcing, capacity and effectiveness to be evaluated. We have proposed that the annual report should set out
“the number of extensions to the reporting period”
for mandatory notifications that the CMA has made, the duration of those extensions,
“the number of voluntary referrals made”,
and how many of those the CMA has and has not prepared a report on. The CMA has a key role in ensuring that subsidies and schemes meet the principles and do not distort the market. If it is unable to carry out its responsibilities effectively, there will be a real risk that damaging subsidies continue without challenge or review.
Kirsty Blackman
I have just a couple of points to make. We have already raised a number of concerns about the limitations of the transparency that will be provided, particularly on the subsidies that will be on the database and our inability to get any meaningful information from it, because so many of the subsidies that will be made will be excluded from being on the website by merit of their being below the de minimis threshold. We continue to have concerns about that.
The amendment simply asks for transparency data and for the CMA to produce in its annual report data that it has already. These are data that the CMA will have within its local key performance indicators—stuff that it will be considering anyway. It will know the number of extensions and voluntary referrals that have been made. This is not an additional piece of work that the CMA will need to do. It is simply ensuring that such information is added to the annual report, rather than putting an additional burden on the CMA. It is stuff that the CMA will be measuring anyway—if it is not doing so, it is not a public organisation that is working sensibly. This is basic, bread-and-butter stuff, and it means that we would be able to scrutinise properly and have an idea of what is happening.
The points made by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, particularly in relation to the resourcing of the CMA, are incredibly important. We want the CMA to be adequately resourced so that it can carry out its functions effectively, because the system does not work if the CMA is not adequately resourced. We will struggle to know whether the CMA has adequate resource if it is not producing data on the number of extensions that it has required. As I say, the amendment is eminently sensible, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to the speech made by the Opposition spokesperson.
Paul Scully
The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 requires the CMA to prepare an annual report of its activities and performance during the year. Clause 66 requires the CMA to include details within its annual report of any subsidies and schemes that have been referred to the subsidy advice unit in the previous year, including both mandatory and voluntary referrals. The purpose of including that information is to provide transparency on the number and types of cases being referred to the SAU each year.
Amendment 66 adds to the information that the CMA would be required to append to its annual report in ways that we believe are overly prescriptive. It would limit the CMA’s flexibility to determine what information to include in its annual report and the most effective way to deliver that. Some of the information that the amendment mandates would not be accessible or consistently available. For example, the requirement that the CMA publish the proportion of cases where the SAU found that a public authority’s assessment required improvement, or where it identified a risk to competition and investment, misunderstands the role of the SAU.
The SAU will evaluate the public authority’s assessment of whether the subsidy or scheme complies with the Bill’s requirements. It will also evaluate whether there are any effects of the subsidy or scheme on competition or investment in the UK. The SAU may include advice about how the public authority’s statement might be improved or modified to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Bill, but the SAU is not a regulator. It will not make its own independent assessment of potential risks to competition and investment, or make definitive judgements on the extent of them.
Other requirements of the amendment are similarly unnecessary, including the requirement to publish the number of requests made by the SAU under clause 53(6) to extend the reporting period for a mandatory referral. Clause 53(7) already requires that such requests are published. In addition, the low number of mandatory referrals that we estimate in any given year will mean that calculating the average number of days for extension is unlikely to offer much additional insight into the subsidy control regime. It therefore need not be mandated for inclusion in the annual report.
The amendment would also require the CMA to publish geographical allocations of all subsidies subject to mandatory and voluntary referrals. That would be a burdensome task for the CMA, and would be difficult to comply with consistently. First, the amendment asks for information to which the CMA would not have ready access, since not all subsidies eligible for voluntary referral will be referred to the SAU. Secondly, if a public authority referred a scheme instead of an individual subsidy to the SAU, it would not be possible for the CMA to determine the expected geographic allocation of subsidies not yet awarded under that scheme. The same issue may apply to the beneficiary of a single subsidy that operates in more than one location.
The right approach is to provide the CMA with a degree of flexibility to determine what information about subsidies and schemes referred to the SAU is presented in its annual report. For the reasons that I have provided, I request that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston withdraw the amendment.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for their comments. I intended to press the amendment to a vote, but on the basis of some of the discussion I will not do so. However, I will challenge a couple of things the Minister said. We are all aware of where there could be burdens for the CMA or others in producing reports, but it is important to ensure that we have an X-ray view that provides insight into what is happening across the system as a whole. Where the CMA should have information that would be relevant, it may be useful to include it in the annual report.
The Minister talked about eligibility for voluntary referral, about which the CMA would not have information. We did not intend to include any wording around eligibility, and I do not think that we did. We talked about the number of voluntary referrals, and those for which the CMA decided not to prepare a report. It is important to ensure that our proposals are understood. I take on board what he said, I think in the debate on clause 65: that he would welcome suggestions from the Opposition, and perhaps from his own side, about what information would be useful. We all want to ensure that there is an effective and efficient regime. None of us wants to see unnecessary costs incurred, but we need transparency and the right information to inform the right decisions and the best response.
Kirsty Blackman
I am a bit confused by the Minister’s comments on paragraph (d). He seemed to suggest that the CMA’s report may not talk about where local authorities’ assessments require improvement. That is slightly concerning because, if a local authority is making an assessment on a subsidy and the assessment requires improvement, who is going to tell it? Who is going to say the assessment requires improvement if the CMA does not have the ability to say, “Excuse me. You have done this a bit wrong. Could you do it better?”
It would be helpful if the Minister contacted us, by letter if possible, to say what he expects will be in the CMA’s reports. At the moment, I do not understand what will be in those reports, specifically in relation to the mandatory referrals. What will be in the CMA’s report on the mandatory referrals that come forward? What does the Minister expect will be in the report? It does not have to be prescriptive; it could be ideas of the kind of things that would be in there, because at the moment I do not understand what that report is going to be.
Seema Malhotra
It would be helpful, in the light of our conversation, if we could start with the Minister’s expectation. He may well have reflected on the discussion we have had today. That may a good and efficient way for us to come back with suggestions of what else might occur, or perhaps there will be full, total agreement on what we want to see in the CMA’s annual report; we do not know. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
In accordance with the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, after the end of each financial year, the Competition and Markets Authority must prepare and send to the Secretary of State an annual report of its activities and performance during the year. The clause requires that the CMA include details within its annual report of any subsidies and schemes that have been referred to the subsidy advice unit in the previous year, including referrals made on both a mandatory and a voluntary basis. That will help to provide transparency on the number and types of subsidies and schemes that have been reported on by the subsidy advice unit.
Seema Malhotra
Notwithstanding the comments we have made in the ongoing discussion, we support the clause stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67
information-gathering powers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause gives the subsidy advice unit—the SAU—information-gathering powers to assist with its monitoring and reporting functions under clause 65. It does so by applying, with modifications, the information-gathering powers that the CMA has under sections 41 to 43 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.
Those powers enable the SAU to require that persons produce specified documents and that businesses provide estimates, forecasts, returns and other information that may be specified. The SAU will be able to require that the information be provided for the purpose of assisting it to review and report on the operation of the Bill, and on its impact on competition and investment within the United Kingdom. The SAU will have the power to impose financial penalties, where a person fails to provide information as required, or intentionally obstructs or delays the SAU when it is exercising those powers.
The Secretary of State is given the power to make necessary modifications to the powers, so that they work when applied for those purposes. Such modifications cannot alter the maximum financial penalties that may be imposed by the SAU. It is important that the SAU can obtain credible and comprehensive information, so that it can monitor and report on the subsidy control regime effectively. The ability to impose financial penalties for non-compliance provides a powerful incentive for persons to provide that information to the SAU and is consistent with the CMA’s existing statutory functions.
Seema Malhotra
The clause applies sections 41 to 43 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 for the purpose of assisting the CMA in carrying out its functions on subsidy control. The clause means that the CMA will be able to give an information notice or require the production of a document by an individual, business, or public authority. We recognise the importance of allowing the CMA to give an information notice, so that it can monitor the subsidy regime effectively. We therefore support the clause standing part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68
Subsidy Advice Unit
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 68, page 38, line 39, at end insert—
“(3A) The Chair of the CMA Board may appoint up to three non-executive members to the Subsidy Advice Unit established under subsection (1) in order to ensure that the Unit includes least one person with relevant experience in relation to each of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”
This amendment would allow the CMA Chair to appoint up to three non-executive members to ensure that the Unit includes at least one person with experience in relation to each of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 68, in clause 68, page 38, line 41, at end insert—
“or persons appointed under subsection (3A).”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 67.
Amendment 69, in clause 68, page 38, line 41, at end insert—
“(4A) Before making an appointment to the Subsidy Advice Unit, the CMA must seek the consent of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.”
This amendment would require the CMA to seek the consent of the devolved administrations before making an appointment to the Subsidy Advice Unit.
Seema Malhotra
The clause establishes regulations for the CMA to establish a board called the subsidy advice unit, which will carry out the CMA’s duties under the new regime. We support the creation of the subsidy advice unit and the duties it gains under the Bill. However, yet again, the Government have failed to create a role for the devolved Administrations. The Minister might wonder whether I sound like a broken record, but the reason is that the theme continues to be a cause of concern throughout the Bill.
The subsidy advice unit will play an extremely important role in the new regime, consistently assessing all subsidies and schemes referred to the CMA, by public bodies and by the Secretary of State. Its reports and advice will influence the challenging and carrying out of subsidies and schemes, and will provide important guidance for public authorities. The demands on its time and expertise will be considerable, as it sets up and carries out that very important function.
Rightly, the unit ought to have all the right input. A diversity of input means that some of the best decisions will be made. It is important to ensure that the right advice and input will be there in the unit, in particular that representing all four nations of the UK. Its work will be applicable not just to England, but to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, the clause does not appear to ensure that all nations will be represented fairly in the subsidy advice unit. Why is that?
Does the Minister not feel that it is important for the devolved nations to be represented on this significant body? Doing so would enhance the Government’s reaching out and their ongoing connection with the devolved Administrations, ensuring genuine four-nation input in its work. As Dr Pazos-Vidal, head of the Brussels office for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, said, the Bill
“is too general and not reflective of the territorial constitution of the UK as it stands.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 8, Q4.]
The lack of specific representation for the devolved Administrations on the advice unit is a stark example of that.
Labour proposes two amendments to change that lack of representation. They would ensure that the Bill works as well as we want it to, and as well as we need it to for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as for England. Amendment 67 would allow the chair of the CMA board to appoint up to three non-executive members to the subsidy advice unit if the board felt that there was a gap. That would ensure that the CMA could include at least one person on the unit with specific, recent experience that was relevant to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Amendment 69 states that the CMA must seek the consent of the devolved Administrations before making an appointment to the subsidy advice unit.
The amendments would ensure that the guidance and reports issued by the CMA are not too England-focused, and take into account, in a more equal way, the views of all the UK regions. They seek to ensure that information and insights are considered in the round and together, and that the new regime is more effective across the whole of the UK.
It is not just Labour that recognises that representation is important. To choose just one comment that we heard in evidence, Thomas Pope, deputy chief economist at the Institute for Government, said:
“I certainly think that the CMA and/or the subsidy advice unit should have a membership and input reflecting its four-nation role in the UK”.––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 31, Q43.]
We think that that should be formalised as part of the structure, so that things are less likely to go wrong or be overlooked. If there is an intention to have such representation anyway, why not formalise it as part of the structure, and put it on the face of the Bill?
Paul Scully
Clause 68 requires that the CMA establishes a new committee of the board, called the subsidy advice unit, for the purposes of undertaking the subsidy control functions set out elsewhere in the Bill. The unit would be a specific committee within the CMA dealing with subsidy control, exclusively comprising staff and members of the CMA. In the clause, “members of the CMA” refers to the chair and individuals who sit on the CMA board and the CMA panel of competition experts. “Staff” refers to the civil servants employed by the CMA.
Amendments 67 and 68 appear to misinterpret the relationship between the CMA and the subsidy advice unit. The CMA was chosen as the home of the subsidy advice unit because of the former’s experience of protecting UK competition and its credibility with both domestic and international stakeholders. Although the subsidy advice unit is being set up as a distinct unit, reflecting its unique role compared to the CMA’s other statutory functions, it would still be an internal unit of the CMA. Subsidy advice unit appointments are therefore internal CMA appointments.
Amendments 67 and 68 seek to allow the CMA chair to appoint non-executive members to the subsidy advice unit. However, the CMA can already recruit personnel to the unit with relevant experience in relation to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The CMA already can and does recruit staff and members from across the UK, and currently employs staff in Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London.
Amendment 69 goes much further, by requiring that the CMA seek the consent of the devolved Administrations before making appointments to the subsidy advice unit. However, as we have already established, subsidy advice unit appointments are internal CMA appointments. The amendment represents an unprecedented and unwarranted intrusion into the CMA’s internal operations, putting at risk the very independence that makes it such a desirable home for the subsidy advice unit’s function. I therefore request that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston withdraws amendment 67.
Seema Malhotra
The Minister has said that having the voice of the devolved Administrations is unprecedented. Before I come back on whether we will press any of the amendments to a vote, can he clarify whether that is really unprecedented? He was involved in the Office for the Internal Market legislation in a way that I was not directly, so is there a difference in how the Office for the Internal Market is constituted in relation to the devolved Administrations?
Paul Scully
It is a different set-up. The Bill places a requirement on the CMA to establish a new committee of its board, to be referred to as the unit, which would consist of members of the CMA and staff. It does not have the same constitutional impact, not least because the subsidy advice unit will deal with the subsidy regime, which is reserved. In the same way as Ministers do not get involved in the day-to-day workings of the subsidy advice unit or the CMA to ensure their independence, it remains for the CMA to determine which staff it appoints to the unit.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. I do not think he fully answered the question, which is whether there is anything different about the representation of the devolved Administrations in relation to the Office for the Internal Market. Perhaps he can answer that specifically.
The Minister is right about allowing for independence, but it is independence to operate within a framework that I think is being set in the Bill. There is room for us to do this without challenging the independence of the CMA or the subsidy advice unit by simply laying out what Parliament would expect. Perhaps he can come back to me specifically on the point about the Office for the Internal Market and the voice of devolved Administrations in it.
Paul Scully
The Office for the Internal Market is a distinct set-up—it is a new set-up—whereas this is a committee within the board of the CMA. As I say, they are two distinct bodies. The OIM is overseen by the CMA, but it sits as a distinct body. The SAU sits within the CMA’s overall tree.
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady talks about the devolved position. The OIM sits as a distinct board specifically because of the constitutional impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Because the SAU sits within the CMA’s board, it is very much an internal appointment. The OIM is not constituted in the same way. It is not for the CMA to make those internal appointments to the OIM directly.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for that, but I do not feel that he has been completely clear. These are not God-given institutions; we are talking about decisions made by the same Government. The question becomes whether there is a reason, and whether it would be helpful and effective in the way that the regime is set up and operates, to have independent expert voices that are from and work with the four nations of the UK. I do not feel that there has been a clear response to that important issue.
Paul Scully
The 2020 Act constitutes the Office for the Internal Market—we determined that—whereas the subsidy advice unit, being not a regulator but an organisation that offers advice, sits directly within the CMA. It is not setting up a discrete body; it is setting up a portion of the CMA. We have charged the CMA to set up the subsidy advice unit. Either the CMA is independent or it is not. The amendment charges us to get under the bonnet of the CMA’s internal appointments and direct it to make certain appointments, which risks undermining its independence.
Seema Malhotra
Perhaps the Minister and I will have to agree to differ on this point, because seeking to have particular areas of expertise reflected in the membership of the subsidy advice unit is not challenging its independence; it is setting out the expectation of Parliament. It is within the Minister’s gift to say that, and it could be contained in the Bill if we chose to do so.
Paul Scully
The SAU has the ability to bring in independent experts, including experts with interests in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. The staff clearly have that expertise as well, which is why they have offices in each of the cities I mentioned.
Seema Malhotra
I think we will come back to the point that the CMA is likely to do what is required by Parliament and Ministers. It is important to remember that distinction: we are the ones who are making decisions on legislation, so we are accountable to the public and the taxpayer for making legislation that will stand the test of time and operate in the interests of the four nations of the UK, as is intended. That is not for the CMA to make decisions on; it will be looking to the Minister to advise and help make decisions on that. I put it to the Minister that making sure that the subsidy advice unit contains expert voices from across our devolved Administrations is an important part of how we make sure it is constituted to have the inputs we need. After that, as I am sure we all agree, there needs to be independence in how the CMA operates. There will be no determination by Parliament of which specific people should be on those boards—we need to separate those issues.
On the basis of what the Minister has said, I do not think the Bill currently goes far enough, so we will press amendment 67 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Scully
The purpose of clause 68 is to require the Competition and Markets Authority to create the subsidy advice unit as a committee of its board, and to allow the SAU to carry out subsidy control functions under, or by virtue of, this Bill on behalf of the CMA. This type of governance has the advantage of not requiring large structural changes within the CMA, while providing appropriate administrative ring fencing to allow the subsidy advice unit to carry out the subsidy control functions, existing as a discrete unit with its own character and brand.
Kirsty Blackman
A couple of questions have been raised about this clause. I am not particularly happy with how it works: I think more could have been contained in it. The questions from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston have shown that there is a lack of clarity on what the subsidy advice unit means and how it will differ from the Office for the Internal Market, for example. The Minister will probably laugh, but it would be incredibly helpful if we were provided with an organogram that explains the work of the CMA, the SAU sub-committee, and the Office for the Internal Market, so that we can understand how it all goes together.
The Minister has been clear that the SAU sub-committee of the CMA board is a different thing from the internal market one. I do not entirely understand how it all fits together. I know that the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 explains some of it, but all those pieces of legislation, in various different places, being mashed together still does not give a picture of how it will all work. If the Minister could agree to look at that, it would be incredibly helpful.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. Notwithstanding the debate we have had, the Labour party supports clause stand part, but some areas need to be reflected on, including how the Office for the Internal Market is working, and what we can learn for the CMA and this regime. Clarity ahead of Report would be very helpful to settle some of those questions.
Paul Scully
I will happily supply an organogram. Effectively, the Office for the Internal Market sits as a specific panel, whereas the SAU is a committee of the CMA and will go down on the CMA board. Working that way was the CMA’s preferred approach because that gives it discretion on how to design the operational processes for fulfilling the SAU’s functions.
Seema Malhotra
I accept that the structures are different, but sometimes we can learn from principles. There is a difference between structures, functions and principles, and we are quite interested in the principles point.
Paul Scully
I appreciate that, but I was saying that the CMA preferred this way because it allows the CMA to draw on its board and staff members, as well as on existing members of the CMA panel, as it sees fit. That avoids creating any additional complexity in the governance arrangements—as we have seen with the Office for the Internal Market, we do not want that to keep expanding. That allows the CMA to draw on the expertise of CMA panel members with established backgrounds in state aid and subsidy control who were appointed in anticipation of the functions under the new regime.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
References to subsidy control groups
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The purpose of clause 69 is to enable the subsidy advice unit to make a reference to the CMA chair for the constitution of a CMA panel group under schedule 4 to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. The provision gives the CMA the ability to refer certain subsidy control functions to its expert independent panel members as it sees fit.
Seema Malhotra
As the Minister has said, clause 69 enables the subsidy advice unit to make reference to the chair of the CMA for the constitution of a CMA panel group. We have no issues with the clause and will support clause stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Review of subsidy decisions
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 70, page 39, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment would allow an application to be made to review a subsidy decision related to a subsidy given under a scheme.
The amendment would enable interested parties to apply to the Competition Appeal Tribunal for a review of the decision to give a subsidy or make a subsidy scheme. An interested party is defined in subsection (7) as
“a person whose interests may be affected by the giving of the subsidy or the making of the…scheme”
or the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) states that:
“Where an application for a review of a subsidy decision relates to a subsidy given under a subsidy scheme, the application must be made for a review of the decision to make the subsidy scheme”,
meaning that an application cannot be made in respect of a decision to give a subsidy under a scheme. The Bill is explicit on that matter.
The evidence from the law firm DWF is quite scathing about that aspect of clause 70:
“We also believe preventing challenges to awards made under a scheme runs contrary to the logic of the system, which seems to be to allow those affected to test the lawfulness of awards at the point they are affected.”
I would be grateful if the Minister could respond on that. Is it right that although an interested party may have suffered as a result of the awarding of a subsidy, if it is made under a scheme, they have no basis to bring a challenge? If that is right, can it be right?
Labour’s amendment reflects both our concern and a suggestion to remediate that deficiency, which is to leave out subsection (2). The result would be that an application to review a subsidy decision could also be made for a decision to award a subsidy made under a scheme. That seems to be one way to address the issue. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response, first, on the issue and, secondly, whether he thinks there is a better way to address it in legislation.
Paul Scully
Clause 70 sets out the terms under which an application for review of a subsidy decision may be made to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The tribunal may review, on application by an interested party, a decision made by a public authority to give a subsidy or make a subsidy scheme.
As drafted, an interested party may not apply to the tribunal for a review of the decision to grant a subsidy under the terms of a scheme. An application may instead be made to review the making of the scheme itself. Before a scheme is made, the proposed terms must be assessed against the subsidy control principles; a scheme must not be made unless subsidies granted under it are consistent with those principles. Consequently, subsidies that comply with the terms of a scheme will comply with the principles and do not need a separate assessment.
Subsidy schemes have long been recognised as a convenient way to grant multiple subsidies—not least because of the administrative simplicity of making a single, scheme-wide assessment against the principles. It would significantly undercut the benefits of administrative efficiency of schemes if subsidies granted in line with the terms of a subsidy scheme were eligible for review by the tribunal.
I am not sure what harm the amendment is trying to remedy. Is it the risk that impermissible subsidies may be granted under a scheme? In such cases, either the scheme is non-compliant and can be challenged within the normal limitation periods, or the subsidy does not comply with the terms of the scheme it is granted under, in which case the non-compliant subsidy would be deemed a new individual subsidy, and could be challenged as such. I therefore request that the hon. Lady withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Michael Tomlinson)
The Minister is not giving way. The hon. Lady is making a speech.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Will the Minister clarify that last point, as to how a subsidy under a scheme could be regarded—if I understood him correctly—as a new subsidy, and treated as a new subsidy for the purposes of a challenge?
Paul Scully
The scheme can essentially be challenged under the Competition Appeal Tribunal against the principles. If a subsidy granted under a scheme is consistent with those principles, it is part of the scheme, and it is the scheme that would need to be challenged. If a subsidy granted under a scheme is not consistent with the principles, it is therefore not consistent with the scheme, and it would sit outside that. It could therefore be challenged.
Seema Malhotra
I must say that I find that a little confusing. I am not fully clear on how a challenge can be brought to a subsidy under a scheme to even determine—what the Minister said in relation to it. Perhaps I am missing the point here, but it currently seems to be very explicit: it ends up being about the scheme rather than an individual subsidy under the scheme. Nine out of 10 subsidies under a scheme may have no challenges against them, with only one being challenged.
Paul Scully
The scheme itself must already be consistent with those principles, so if any particular subsidy is given within the scheme, and it is not consistent with the principles, then it clearly cannot sit within that scheme itself, because it is inconsistent with the scheme that it is purported to be part of. Therefore, that will then be set aside and will be approachable for the CAT.
Seema Malhotra
Who would make that decision? It does not seem to be in line with the wording of the legislation.
Paul Scully
That is when the interested parties can approach the CAT on that basis.
The Chair
The Opposition spokesperson was asking for some clarifications from the Minister.
Kirsty Blackman
If there is a subsidy that is given under a subsidy scheme, who decides that that subsidy was not eligible to be part of the subsidy scheme and is therefore applicable to challenge outside the scheme? I think that is part of the point that the Opposition spokesperson was getting at. There does not seem to be a mechanism for saying “That subsidy doesn’t fit within this scheme, and is therefore challengeable in its own right, rather than as part of the scheme”.
A subsidy is, by definition, one given under the scheme until somebody analyses that and decides that it is not applicable to be given under the scheme, but there does not seem to be a process for that subsidy to be categorised as something that should not have been given under the scheme. How does the challenge procedure work here?
Paul Scully
Essentially, if the public authority has wrongly given the subsidy as part of a scheme, it will be for the CAT to decide.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his answer; I want to ensure that we correctly understand what he is trying to say. On the basis of what I think he is saying—that there may be a mechanism for challenging subsidies under a subsidy scheme—I will not press the amendment to a vote today, but I would like the Minister to explain, in writing, how he would see that scenario working, and where the power to bring a challenge sits.
I am still not clear where a determination—that a subsidy is to be treated as a subsidy, rather than a subsidy under a scheme—would come from. That does not feel clear, so let us get that clarified. If we could have that in writing, that would be extremely helpful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 70, page 40, line 9, leave out
“whose interests may be affected by”
and insert
“who has sufficient interest in”
This amendment would alter the definition of interested party to make it consistent with clause 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
The purpose of clause 70 is to enable interested parties to challenge subsidies before the CAT. It defines an interested party as
“a person whose interests may be affected by the giving of the subsidy or the making of the subsidy scheme”
or “the Secretary of State”. We are concerned that the definition is too narrow and is deficient in two respects. The definition of interested parties—the test that establishes standing for the purposes of judicial review—applies a test at subsection (7)(a), which seems narrower than under the Senior Courts Act 1981. The test under subsection (7)(a) is
“a person whose interests may be affected”.
By contrast, the test under section 31(3) of the 1981 Act is a person who
“has a sufficient interest in”.
While it may not seem so different on one level, it could have important consequences.
George Peretz and others have suggested that the definition of interested parties under the Bill narrows the standard public law right and could be interpreted as limiting those who could bring a challenge to parties whose commercial or financial interests have been affected. What would that mean for the ability of those acting in the public interest and not in a private interest to challenge a subsidy?
Let us use an example: the Good Law Project has serious concerns about the awarding of a tax relief to a particular business and does not believe the subsidy is consistent with the subsidy control principles. It is not inconceivable that the business could be owned by a friend or relative of a Minister who is awarding the tax relief or being involved in some other way. In light of the current climate around sleaze, perhaps it would not be surprising at all. Can the Minister clarify what standing an independent challenger, such as the Good Law Project, would have under subsection (7)(a) to bring a challenge to such a tax relief, and if not why not?
Labour proposes amendment 70 to make the definition of interested party consistent with section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. It should not only be those whose financial interests are or may be affected and the Secretary of State who can challenge subsidies.
As Professor Rickard, professor of political science at the London School of Economics, explained in October:
“Thinking about who has a particular interest in challenging those subsidies, there may be good reasons to expand the potential set of challengers to ensure that it includes not just competitors but maybe also employees, trade unions, taxpayers or interest groups. That would give us more eyes on the subsidies to ensure that they are complying with the principles, ensuring value for money and achieving the economic outcomes that they set out to achieve.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 23, Q25.]
Does the Minister recognise that the subsidy’s impact can extend beyond those who are more narrowly defined as interested parties? The amendment could bring the test for standing in line with judicial review. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify whether there was an intention to subtly deviate from the definition in the Senior Courts Act. We hope the Government recognise that it could be a way of improving how the Bill operates as well.
Paul Scully
I will go into a bit more detail in a second, but an interested party is any person whose interests may be affected by the decision in question. We are setting out a new UK-specific subsidy regime with unique rules. In that context, we have set out an intentionally broad definition of what constitutes an interested party. That said, the Competition Appeal Tribunal can exercise its discretion. We want to ensure that in each case the right people are determined to be interested parties. By exercising that discretion, the Competition Appeal Tribunal can build up a jurisprudence that is specific to and optimally used for the subsidy control context. The Competition Appeal Tribunal is an expert body in competition matters and has the right knowledge to make appropriate decisions on these questions of standing.
As we have heard, the amendment would require the CAT to adopt the test in the Senior Courts Act 1981, which states that a person seeking review of the subsidy decision must have “sufficient interest”. I understand that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston intends that the amendment would broaden the scope of who can bring a challenge, but given the breadth of the existing test in the Bill, I do not think that she could be confident that her amendment would have the desired effect. In any event, it would bring along a body of case law that may be unrelated to the new subsidy control regime and could prevent the CAT from exercising its full discretion in each case. As I have said, it is a new system, with standalone enforcement through the CAT. It is therefore appropriate that the tribunal can decide for itself who can seek reviews of subsidy decisions.
The clause does not exclude any party whose interests may genuinely be affected by a subsidy. As such, I cannot see the advantage in changing the test for who can challenge a subsidy, as proposed in the amendment. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston talked specifically about someone without a financial interest. As I say, that is why the definition of “interested party” is broad. It covers any person whose interests may be affected by a subsidy, and it will be up to the CAT to determine. We are giving the expert body the appropriate discretion to get the answers right in each and every case, and I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Seema Malhotra
This is an interesting and important discussion about who is included in the definition of “interested party”. I would like to reflect on the Minister’s comments and perhaps test them with expert advice and a detailed review of the definitions and explanatory notes for the Bill. On that basis, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Judicial Review and Courts Bill (Seventh sitting)
Tuesday 16th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 View all Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 November 2021 - (16 Nov 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Good morning. I remind Members of the advice offered with regard to social distancing and suchlike that we have heard many times before.
Clause 8
Written procedure for indicating plea and determining mode of trial: children
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
Good morning, Mr Rosindell. The sun shines on the Committee. This is a sunshine clause, not necessarily a sunset clause, but it is an important one. The criminal age of responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old, which means that children aged between 10 and 17 can be charged with a crime and prosecuted in court. The majority of children’s cases are dealt with in our youth courts, which are specifically designed to provide for the additional needs and vulnerabilities of children. In addition to specialist youth courts, there are bespoke procedures and processes that apply to criminal proceedings against children. That is why we are legislating for online plea and allocation for children under a separate clause, which recognises the distinct youth justice system that exists for them.
Clause 8 will help to avoid unnecessary hearings by giving children the option to provide an online indication of plea for offences that may require a subsequent trial allocation decision. Where the indication is not guilty, the clause will enable the court to deal with the allocation decision online. Like adults, children will need to have a legal representative to proceed with the new online procedure, which will be available only through the common platform. The purpose of the clause is to reduce the number of times that children, and their parents or guardians, have to travel to court. It will allow for case management of the pre-trial stage of cases to take place outside of a courtroom so that children have to attend court only for trial and sentencing hearings.
Courts will need to provide such defendants and, where appropriate, their parents or guardians with information explaining the written procedure, the choices available to them and the effects of those choices. Where a child provides an indication of a plea online, courts will have to ensure at the first court hearing that the child has understood their decision and confirms their written indication of plea before proceeding any further with the case. As with any case involving a child, when dealing with preliminary matters in writing or online, courts must continue to have regard to the current overarching statutory duties to prevent children from reoffending, and to have regard to their welfare.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. As the Minister said, the clause creates a new pre-trial allocation procedure similar to that of clause 6, whereby an individual would be able to indicate a plea in writing for all summary-only, indictable-only and triable either-way cases, but this time it is for children. Thus far on the criminal procedure changes in the Bill the Opposition have tried to work with the Government’s proposals to find a workable solution through amendments; however, that is not the case with clause 8, as we believe that it is wholly inappropriate for remote proceedings of this kind to be used in cases with child defendants. The law rightfully affords children additional protections and safeguards to reflect their inherently vulnerable nature, and propensity to plead guilty notwithstanding the evidence or potential defences, as shown, for example, in the evidence-based Justice Lab report on incentivised legal admissions in children.
The Minister outlined the theory of what will happen with this set of measures, but sadly the implementation of it could prove to be very different. The Bar Council opposes the provisions too, saying:
“We do not accept that a written procedure for indicating plea or determining mode of trial in the case of children will do anything other than impede access to justice for the most vulnerable cohort of defendants within the criminal justice system.
It has long been the position of the Criminal Bar Association and the Bar Council that the prosecution of children and young people requires wholesale overhaul to ensure that they only enter into the criminal justice system as a very last resort, if diversion and other interventions are unsuitable.
Representation of children and young people, and the courts that administer youth justice, need to be properly funded, regulated and restructured in order to be fit for purpose.”
The Bar Council goes on:
“At present, these courts are not fit for purpose, and all too often act as a gateway for vulnerable youths into more serious offending. It follows that moving to a written procedure will compound the situation, limiting the opportunities for lawyers working under a legal aid system to meet with vulnerable defendants and their families, signpost interventions by other appropriate agencies and identifying children and youths with additional needs. It will also impede the child and youth’s understanding of the seriousness of the process into which they have entered.”
I very much agree with the Bar Council’s assessment. There is much wrong with the youth justice system, and the provisions of this clause would exacerbate the existing issues rather than do anything to improve them. I would also like to seek further clarity on whether the provisions of this clause would allow online pleas for children, which would be seriously concerning. I emailed the Minister about it last week, and he responded with a note from officials. However, I wonder if he could provide some more specific guidance about it on the record.
Although it is not within the Bill itself, paragraph 181 of the explanatory notes states:
“Clause 8 inserts new section 24ZA of the MCA 1980 that enables a child or young person under 18 years who is charged with a triable either-way offence to be provided with the choice to indicate a plea in writing/online, without the need for a youth court hearing.”
We are opposed to the introduction of a written procedure for indicating plea or determining mode of trial in the case of children in any way, but have even stronger objections to an online procedure being introduced directly for them.
I share the concern of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which says:
“The Commission is concerned that children as young as ten could be engaging with the criminal justice system through an online process insufficiently adapted to their needs and with minimal engagement from a parent or guardian. Children are already more likely to struggle to understand and engage with legal processes. Youth Court hearings provide an important opportunity to respond to the specific and additional needs of children. This is particularly important in light of recent evidence indicating that children are more likely to enter a guilty plea when they are not guilty.”
While the Bill provides that a parent or guardian should be aware of proceedings where they take place online, the Opposition are not convinced that that is sufficient to mitigate against the risks posed to children. As the EHRC briefing notes:
“The law currently provides that, where a child under sixteen is charged with a criminal offence, a parent or guardian must attend all proceedings save where it would be unreasonable to require them to do so. For cases where a plea is entered by a child under sixteen in writing or any part of the proceedings is to be conducted on the papers, the Bill only requires the court to ascertain whether a parent or guardian is aware that proceedings are taking place and where necessary provide that information.”
That is in new section 34A(1B) and (1C) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
My concern about children above 10 years old being able to make an online plea is that when children use a computer and everything is very much virtual, it is a different level of interaction and can seem like a game. I agree with my hon. Friend’s point that their understanding of the process or their experience of making an online plea will be of a less serious nature. I also support his view that children are more likely to say that they are guilty because they are used to apologising, or they want to get out of the situation quickly. This is not the appropriate way forward.
Alex Cunningham
Yes, computers may be learning tools for children, but they are also their game world. Those of us who have families or grandchildren know that to be very much the case. It is so easy to press buttons and tick boxes, and I am really concerned, as is my hon. Friend, that young people may well think, “Let’s take the easy way out. Let’s just tick the box, and let’s get this over and done with. Then I can forget about it.” Unfortunately, they cannot forget about it, because they can end up with a criminal record, even if they are not guilty of the offence of which they have been accused. That is all the more reason why we need to review this clause in some considerable detail.
Of course, the issues applying to children under 16 do not apply to 17-year-old children. Furthermore, article 40(2)(b) of the convention on the rights of the child sets as a minimum standard the right that a child hearing be held in the presence of legal or other appropriate assistance and, unless not in the best interests of the child, his or her parents or legal guardian. In addition, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends
“that States parties explicitly legislate for the maximum possible involvement of parents or legal guardians in the proceedings”.
This clause does the direct opposite. We do not believe that it makes adequate provision to protect the rights of children in the justice system. It is not appropriate that the important safeguards that exist for children should be watered down in that way through the provisions in clause 8. As such, we will oppose the inclusion of the clause in the Bill.
James Cartlidge
I appreciate where the hon. Members for Stockton North and for Lewisham East are coming from, in the sense that of course we have to be careful in matters involving children. It is fair to point out, however, that these are not revolutionary changes of procedure. In my view, there will certainly be cases where, particularly for vulnerable people, the online environment is more suitable in many ways, because after all they will have legal representation.
I will explain clearly exactly what the clause does, what the safeguards are and where the discretion lies, to try to ameliorate some of the concerns. At the moment, there would be the plea before venue and allocation decision procedures for children of 10 to 17-years-old, which can be completed only at a court hearing. The Bill enables those procedures to be completed in writing online via the common platform without the need for a hearing, as is clear.
On the safeguards, defendants will need a legal representative to proceed with online plea and allocation. That is an important safeguard that will remain firmly in place due to the accessibility restrictions created by the common platform and the stipulations in secondary legislation under the criminal procedure rules. Courts will need to provide information explaining the written procedure, the choices available to defendants and the effects of those choices. If a defendant fails to engage with an invitation to proceed in writing or online, the court will default back to a traditional first hearing. Clause 13, which we will come to, applies with regards to requiring and enabling the court to ascertain whether the parent or guardian is aware, and if they are not, to provide them with the relevant information.
Finally, in terms of discretion, it is the defendant’s discretion to proceed with online indication of plea and allocation in writing or online, so they can still have a traditional hearing. It is also the court’s discretion to withhold or disapply online indication of plea and allocation in writing, if it thinks that is appropriate in the circumstances. There are significant safeguards in place.
It means that we will have greater consistency, but I accept what the hon. Member for Stockton North is saying, which is why we have been keen throughout the debate on these clauses to stress the important safeguards and discretions that exist. I hope that, on that basis, hon. Members can support the clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 9, page 22, line 34, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 17B (power to proceed with indication of plea hearing in absence of disorderly but represented accused)—
(a) for the heading substitute “Power to proceed if accused does not appear to give indication as to plea”;
(b) for subsection (1) substitute—
“(1A) This section has effect where—
(a) a hearing is held for the purposes of section 17A,
(b) the accused does not appear at the hearing,
(c) any of the conditions in subsections (1B) to (1E) is met, and
(d) the court is satisfied that it is not contrary to the interests of justice to proceed in the absence of the accused.
(1B) This condition is that a legal representative of the accused is present at the hearing and signifies the accused’s consent to the court’s proceeding in the accused’s absence.
(1C) This condition is that—
(a) a legal representative of the accused is present at the hearing, and
(b) the court does not consider that there is an acceptable reason for the accused’s failure to attend.
(1D) This condition is that—
(a) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in such manner as may be prescribed, that notice of the hearing was served on the accused within what appears to the court to be a reasonable time before its date, and
(b) the court does not consider that there is an acceptable reason for the accused’s failure to attend.
(1E) This condition is that—
(a) the accused has appeared on a previous occasion to answer the charge, and
(b) the court does not consider that there is an acceptable reason for the accused’s failure to attend.
(1F) This section also has effect where—
(a) a hearing is held for the purposes of section 17A,
(b) the accused appears at the hearing,
(c) the court considers that by reason of the accused’s disorderly conduct before the court it is not practicable for the hearing to be conducted in the accused’s presence, and
(d) the court is satisfied that it is not contrary to the interests of justice to proceed in the absence of the accused.”;
(c) in subsection (2), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “If a legal representative of the accused is present at the hearing—”;
(d) after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) If no legal representative of the accused is present at the hearing—
(a) the court is to proceed in accordance with section 18(1), and
(b) the accused is to be taken for the purposes of section 20 to have indicated that the accused would (if the offence were to proceed to trial) plead not guilty.””
This amendment allows a magistrates’ court to proceed if an accused person does not appear at the “plea before venue” hearing in a wider range of circumstances (equivalent to those provided for in relation to allocation hearings by clause 9(3)).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 3, 4, 8 and 9.
James Cartlidge
I have tabled these amendments to correct some errors in the Bill, which would prevent this measure from having the desired impact. When it comes to triable either-way offences, the procedures for plea and allocation are invariably completed in immediate succession of each other in the same court hearing. The primary purpose of clause 9 is to enable the court to complete preliminary pre-trial proceedings in the absence of a defendant in a wider range of circumstances than the law currently allows. That will help to ensure the timely progression through the criminal justice system of cases that would have otherwise stalled indefinitely where a defendant deliberately disengaged.
As currently drafted, clause 9 does not afford the same extended set of circumstances to proceed in absence for the plea procedure as there will be for the subsequent allocation procedure. That will in effect act as a legislative roadblock that prevents the courts from being able to make use of the new powers that clause 9 provides. Therefore, these amendments will ensure that the court has the same powers to proceed in the absence of a defendant for both the plea and the allocation decision procedures. Where the court decides that it is in the interest of justice to proceed in a defendant’s absence, it will be assumed that the defendant has pleaded not guilty, and the court will allocate the case for a trial.
A further amendment rectifies a drafting error in clause 9 to ensure that it remains consistent with current law, whereby there is no requirement for the presence of a legal representative when a court decides to proceed with allocation, having removed a disorderly defendant from the courtroom.
These amendments will allow the clause to work as intended, maximising the benefits for the criminal justice system. Clause 9 will continue to ensure that the court cannot proceed in absence unless it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so.
Alex Cunningham
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the need for a raft of amendments to his own Bill.
Clause 9 will introduce additional circumstances in which the magistrates court could continue with the proceedings in the defendant’s absence in triable either-way cases. This applies to adults, and there are similar provisions for children. I will speak on our general concerns in the debates on the Opposition amendments.
I again thank Justice for its assistance in highlighting potential concerns in this area. Currently, the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 provides that the process for triable either-way cases begins with a plea before venue, where an adult defendant is required to appear in a magistrates court to indicate whether they wish to plead guilty or not guilty. Thereafter, if the defendant pleads not guilty or refuses to state a plea, the case proceeds to the allocation hearing. That involves deciding whether the case should be tried in the magistrates court or the Crown court. The defendant is required to be present for both the plea before venue hearing and the allocation hearing. However, in both scenarios there are two circumstances where the court can proceed in the defendant’s absence: where the defendant has legal representation and the court considers that, by reason of the defendant’s disorderly behaviour, it is not practicable for the proceedings to be conducted in their presence—the legal representative will of course act on the defendant’s behalf—or where the defendant gives consent via their legal representative for proceedings to take place in their absence.
Clause 9 would introduce additional circumstances where the magistrates court could proceed with the allocation proceedings in a defendant’s absence in triable either-way cases. In its current form, the Bill does not introduce any changes to the way plea before venue hearings are conducted for triable either way cases. In addition to the two existing circumstances that I have mentioned, clause 9 would empower the magistrates court to now proceed and allocate the case without the defendant’s input in cases where the defendant does not engage in writing or does not appear at their hearing without an “acceptable reason”, provided that the court is satisfied that the defendant has been properly served. The allocation decision would be made on the basis of an assumed not guilty plea—the Minister said that—and the court would proceed to allocate the case to the magistrates court or Crown court. Defendants, however, will continue to have an opportunity to elect for a trial in the Crown court until the start of the summary trial.
Government amendment 2 will now allow a magistrates court to continue with the proceedings in cases where the defendant does not appear at the plea before venue hearing in a wider range of circumstances. The circumstances mirror those proposed for allocation hearings as set out in clause 9(3), including where a defendant does not appear at the hearing without an acceptable reason. The amendment proposes changes to section 17B of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, which currently empowers magistrates courts to proceed with the plea before venue hearing
“in the absence of a disorderly but represented accused”—
one of the two exceptions to the general rule mentioned earlier.
However, the amendment does not include any requirement for a defendant’s legal representative to be present, which is currently provisioned in the Bill for the allocation hearing, although the Government propose removing it through amendment 3. A number of other circumstances in which the plea can go ahead in the defendant’s absence also do not require the defendant’s legal representative to be present.
Janet Daby
Does my hon. Friend agree that children in particular are vulnerable, and that they should always have legal representation in any plea or pre-plea situation?
Alex Cunningham
I most certainly do. My hon. Friend knows that I will talk about children in the justice system forever, if I need to. It is absolutely critical that they are given every support. Not every parent is capable of offering the appropriate advice, so it is very important that legal representation is in place, in particular in the absence of parents.
Although the Bill previously expanded the circumstances in which an allocation hearing could take place in the defendant’s absence, it at least required that where the defendant was absent due to disorderly conduct, their legal representative would need to be present for the hearing to continue. However, the amendment removes the need for their legal representative to be present; instead, it empowers the court to proceed with the allocation hearing in cases where both the defendant and their legal representative are absent. I do not at all see the need for the removal of that important safeguard, and the Minister’s comments thus far have not convinced me. I wonder how many cases he expects those provisions to be used for.
Government amendment 4 would allow a magistrates court to move straight to the allocation stage if, under the provision inserted by amendment 2, it decides at the plea before venue stage to proceed in the absence of the accused or their legal representative, without needing to consider the merits of the proceedings in the absence of the accused. The court could therefore proceed with an allocation decision in the defendant’s absence, in which case the defendant would be deemed to have indicated a not guilty plea. Justice states that the amendments represent
“a significant alteration of the status quo”,
which permits plea before venue hearings and allocation hearings in the absence of the defendant only for reasons relating to the defendant’s disorderly conduct, or where the defendant consents via their legal representative to proceedings taking place in their absence.
The Opposition share Justice’s concern that clause 9 as a whole—especially with the Government amendments—may remove essential safeguards put in place for the accused’s effective participation in the proceedings, and instead prioritise alleged court efficiency over a defendant’s right to a fair trial. I do mean “alleged” court efficiency—as I will discuss in our next debates, I have concerns that some of the measures the Government are seeking to introduce to improve efficiency may in fact have the opposite effect. I am concerned that the Government amendments would expand the scenarios in which the court could proceed in the absence of a defendant’s legal representative at both the plea before venue stage and the allocation hearing.
I really do not understand why this is at all necessary. Plea and allocation decisions can have significant consequences for an individual and their liberty. It is right that every effort be made to ensure that defendants are properly engaged in their proceedings. The Minister knows that we are all too keen to support the Government in improving the efficiency of our courts, but it is important that the measures we introduce have a genuine evidence base and are not obviously detrimental to the rights of defendants and due process, and I think these amendments would fail both criteria.
The Opposition want an efficient court system every bit as much as the Minister does. However, I worry that if we get it wrong the measures will have the opposite effect. That said, we will not oppose the amendments at this stage, but instead will offer the Government an opportunity to improve the clause through our own series of amendments, to which I hope the Minister will be as accommodating as we have been to his.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 9, page 23, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—
“(b) the accused has given a reason that the court does not consider to be an acceptable reason for their failure to attend”.
This amendment would ensure that the defendant is given the opportunity to provide a reason for their non-attendance and avoid the court speculating as to what that reason might be.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 81, in clause 9, page 23, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert—
“(b) the accused has given a reason that the court does not consider to be an acceptable reason for their failure to attend”.
See Explanatory Statement for Amendment 80.
Amendment 82, in clause 9, page 23, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—
“(b) the accused has given a reason that the court does not consider to be an acceptable reason for their failure to attend”.
See Explanatory Statement for Amendment 80.
Amendment 83, in clause 9, page 24, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert—
“(e) the accused has given a reason that the court does not consider to be an acceptable reason for their failure to attend”.
See Explanatory Statement for Amendment 80.
Alex Cunningham
I begin by thanking Justice for its detailed briefing on the clause, which was extremely helpful for identifying potential issues of concern. As the Minister has outlined, clause 9 introduces additional circumstances in which the magistrates court can proceed with the allocation proceedings in a defendant’s absence in triable either-way cases. That applies to adults, and the clause contains similar provisions for children. A magistrates court would now be able to proceed and allocate the case without the defendant’s input in cases where the defendant does not engage in writing or appear at their hearing without an “acceptable reason”, provided that the court is satisfied that the defendant has been properly served.
The allocation decision would be made on the basis of an assumed not guilty plea and the court would proceed to allocate the case to the magistrates court or the Crown court. Defendants, however, will continue to have an opportunity to elect for a jury trial until the start of the summary trial. That would represent quite a significant expansion of current practice, which only permits allocation hearings in the absence of the defendant for reasons relating to the defendant's disorderly conduct—we have discussed that already—or where the defendant gives consent via their legal representative for proceedings to take place in their absence.
I note that the Law Society expressed some concern with the clause. In its Second Reading briefing, it said:
“If the court decides the defendant’s case should be tried in the magistrates’ court, the defendant will only subsequently be able to elect a jury trial if the court agrees that it would be in the interests of justice to reopen the question of the mode of trial. This would effectively result in the defendant losing their right to a jury trial without their consent. In our view a defendant should only lose the right to elect a jury trial if they have expressly waived that right.”
Will the Minister outline a couple of illustrative examples of he imagines a magistrate would consider it in the interests of justice to reopen the matter of allocation, so we can understand how stringently it is intended to be imposed?
Justice also considers clause 9 to be problematic for three reasons. First, it is concerned that the measure would significantly impair the ability of defendants to engage in their proceedings. It notes that
“At present, the defendant has a right to choose the trial venue in cases of triable either way offences. Clause 9, however, empowers the Magistrates to determine the trial venue in cases of triable either way offences in the defendant’s absence, where the defendant does not engage in writing or appear at their hearing without an “acceptable reason”, for which no definition is provided in the Bill or in the Explanatory Notes.”
I agree that it is therefore difficult to assess how it would operate in practice when magistrates would be given a wide discretion to proceed and allocate the case in the defendant’s absence. Indeed, if a defendant has not appeared at the allocation hearing and has not been able to instruct or inform their counsel as to the reason for their non-appearance, it would be impossible for the magistrates to know whether an “acceptable reason” exists or not. Moreover, should the magistrates allocate the case to a court that is different from the one the defendant wants, that could result in the case returning to the allocation stage: they could make a statutory declaration under the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, stating that they did not know of the summons or the subsequent proceedings. That would result in both being void. As Justice explained,
“This will cause delays and additional expenditure of resources, contrary to the aim of this provision, which is to ‘provide the court with an important means of progressing cases which would otherwise stall creating uncertainty and lengthy waiting times’.”
I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that point. We certainly do not want to pass measures aimed at increasing efficiency in the system if they will have the opposite effect in reality. In an attempt to avoid those issues, the Opposition have tabled amendments 80, 81, 82 and 83, which all do the same thing, and together would ensure that the defendant was given the opportunity to provide a reason for their non-attendance and avoid the court speculating as to what that reason might be. I am also interested to hear whether the Minister has any further thoughts on how such speculation by the court can otherwise be avoided.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman has asked some very good questions. I accept that these are important points, so let me try to clarify some of them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the statistics. We do not have precise data on failure to appear, and particularly about prediction of failure to appear in the context of these powers. The majority of defendants prosecuted for triable either-way offences who are sent to Crown court for jury trial are sent there by a magistrates court, rather than by the defendant electing. In 2019, magistrates courts sent 32,262 defendants to the Crown court for a jury trial; of those they decided not to send, 5,277 defendants elected for their case to be sent to be tried by a jury at the Crown court.
In 2019, of the 250,387 adult defendants scheduled to appear at magistrates court for a triable either-way offence, 41,968 defendants had a recorded outcome of failing to appear. However, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is extremely difficult to predict how this clause will affect those figures. Regarding the circumstances in which the decision could be revisited, to be clear, where a defendant has no knowledge of the proceedings brought against them through a summons or requisition until after a magistrates court has begun to try the case, they will be able to make a statutory declaration and restart the proceedings from the beginning, providing adults with another opportunity to elect for a jury trial.
The hon. Gentleman has tabled amendments 80, 81 and 82 in order to ensure that adult defendants are given the opportunity to provide a reason why they are not attending an allocation hearing, and to avoid the courts speculating as to what that reason might be. Amendment 83 would extend the same opportunity to children. The whole point of clause 9 is to give the courts powers to deal with defendants who deliberately delay proceedings and try to evade justice in a wider range of circumstances. These amendments would achieve the opposite by preventing the court from progressing cases in the absence of any communication from the defendant who has not attended. If no reason is given for the court to consider, the case simply cannot progress.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I listened to the Opposition spokesman, and it seemed to me that he made a persuasive case. However, a few moments ago, the Minister introduced an important addition to this discussion in the form of a safeguard. He said very clearly that the accused could restart the whole process if they were not aware of the circumstances, so it seems to me that the people the Minister is describing who are malevolent or malign—who are deliberately trying to frustrate justice—will be caught by this clause, but those who are not will be protected by the safeguard. Perhaps the Minister should amplify or accentuate that safeguard, because it seems to be exactly what the Opposition spokesman was asking for.
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend, who is an expert on amplification, makes an excellent point. He is entirely right: there are safeguards—as with any safeguards, they are there to protect those who have been subject to inadvertent circumstances. They are not there to allow those who have deliberately avoided justice to do so: that distinction is absolutely crystal clear and important. My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head, as it were.
Alex Cunningham
I appreciate the Minister’s explanation outlining again the safeguards in place. I do not believe the safeguards are sufficient and I hope that, over time, the Government will look again at the issue.
I accept wholeheartedly that we do not want people to deliberately slow down their cases for time immemorial, but it is important to recognise that the people we are concerned about are those who have a genuine reason for not having been in touch with the court. Even if we get to the point where they can opt for a trial at a later stage, an awful lot of time and resource are wasted in the interim period. I accept what the Minister says for now and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 3, in clause 9, page 23, leave out lines 33 and 34
This amendment allows a magistrates’ court to carry on with an allocation hearing in the absence of the accused if the accused disrupts the hearing, even if the accused is not legally represented.
Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 23, line 41, at end insert—
“(1G) This section also has effect where a magistrates’ court determines that section 17B(5) applies and proceeds straight away to a hearing in accordance with section 18(1).”—(James Cartlidge.)
This amendment allows a magistrates’ court to move straight to the allocation stage if (under the provision inserted by Amendment 2) it decides at the plea-before-venue stage to proceed in the absence of the accused or a representative, without fresh consideration of the merits of proceeding in the absence of the accused.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 9, page 23, line 41, at end insert—
“(1G) In a case within subsection (1A)—
(a) the accused may, at any time before the taking of a plea in the summary trial, apply to the court for the question of the mode of trial to be reopened;
(b) the court may, if it considers it in the interests of justice to do so, accede to the application and arrange a hearing under paragraph (c);
(c) if a hearing takes place under this paragraph and the accused appears at it, the court is not to proceed to summary trial by virtue of subsection (1A), but is to proceed in accordance with subsections (2) to (9) of section 20 above.”
This amendment would allow defendants to reopen the allocation process and elect for jury trial up to the point of taking a plea in a summary trial if the court considers it in the interest of justice to do so.
I will be very brief. Members will understand why we tabled amendment 58—simply to introduce another safeguard for the use of the new powers under clause 9. The amendment provides defendants with an additional opportunity to reopen the allocation process and elect for a jury trial where this provision is used. That would save the summons or proceedings from being void should a defendant have to make a statutory declaration under section 14 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980. It does not go as far as the Law Society suggests in keeping the matter of electing for a jury trial open unless the defendant has explicitly waived that right, but it at least provides an additional opportunity for the defendant to reopen the matter. It is critical that we do everything possible not just to protect the integrity of the new way of working but to ensure that justice is done. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
James Cartlidge
As the hon. Gentleman says, the amendment would enable an adult defendant to apply to a magistrates court to re-open an allocation decision taken in their absence to try an either-way offence summarily and thus provide the defendant with another opportunity to elect for a jury trial. Such an application could be granted provided it was done before the start of the summary trial and the court considered that it was in the interests of justice.
Clause 9 already provides that important safeguard, albeit with two minor differences. First, the amendment will not explicitly require the court to consider the reason why the defendant failed to appear at the allocation hearing when considering whether it is in the interests of justice to re-open the allocation decision. That is an important provision: it recognises that there will be legitimate reasons why a defendant fails to appear—if they were gravely ill in hospital or were genuinely unaware of the proceedings against them, for example. However, it also recognises that allowing defendants to deliberately hold up proceedings by absconding on bail or refusing to leave their cells does not serve the interests of justice.
Secondly, the amendment gives absent defendants who were represented by a legal representative at their allocation hearing the opportunity to make an application to re-open the allocation decision. Clause 9 already ensures that if a legal representative is present at the allocation hearing but is unable to signify an absent defendant’s consent to a summary trial, the case must be sent to the Crown court for jury trial anyway. This amendment would simply provide defendants with a further means of deliberately delaying proceedings.
The amendment undermines the purpose of clause 9, which aims to tackle deliberately obstructive defendants who are intent on denying victims justice, while protecting the trial rights of those who are genuinely unaware of proceedings. I therefore urge the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Alex Cunningham
Again, the Government concentrate on the people who are difficult in the system rather than those who might have a genuine reason for seeking change. I accept the Minister’s explanation and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 9, page 24, line 21, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment would remove cases involving children and young people from the provisions of Clause 9.
Again, I will be relatively brief. I remain surprised, given what we have discussed already, that the new proposed procedures for adults will, through clause 9(4), apply to children. Given our debate on previous clauses, it will be no surprise to the Minister that this causes me and the Opposition some considerable unease. It introduces a power for the court to proceed with allocation proceedings in a child’s absence. Children are considered inherently vulnerable. While the Bill recognises children’s increased vulnerability and additional requirements, it is not specified how their rights will be appropriately safeguarded.
The Opposition have tabled amendment 84, which would remove subsection (4) and thus limit the provisions of the clause to cases not involving child defendants. I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts as to why the procedure needs to be extended to cases involving children at all. I imagine the number of cases to which it would apply would be relatively few in number anyway, although the Minister may have some data to show otherwise. If so, I would like to hear of it and gain some understanding as to why, once again, the Government want to apply adult criteria to children. Without sufficient reassurances from the Minister, I intend to press the amendment to a vote.
James Cartlidge
The amendment would prevent clause 9 from applying to cases involving children. I do not have those statistics to hand, but I will see if I can endeavour to find them for the hon. Gentleman.
I want to start by acknowledging the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the application of the clause when it comes to children. As I said before, I recognise the sensitivities here, which is why we have emphasised safeguards, and I fully agree that it is vitally important that we protect the interests of children in the criminal justice system.
Subsection (4), which the hon. Gentleman proposes to remove, has been specifically drafted for children. It takes into consideration that defendants under the age of 18 have an extremely limited role to play when it comes to allocation hearings, given that they do not have the same rights as adults to elect for a jury trial at the crown court. It recognises children’s increased vulnerability in the criminal justice system and provides additional safeguards. For example, the additional new circumstances that will enable the allocation of children’s cases in their absence are far more limited than those provided for adults. In addition to the existing exception of disorderly conduct, the clause specifies that the court can only proceed to allocate in a child’s absence where the child has been invited, but failed, to provide an online indication of plea and either the court is satisfied they were served with a notice of the hearing or the child has already appeared at court on a previous occasion to answer the charge. The court must consider whether there is an acceptable reason for the child’s absence and must be satisfied it would not be contrary to the interests of justice for the hearing to proceed in the child’s absence.
The provision must be viewed in the context of existing safeguards in primary legislation. When a child is arrested and held in police detention, the law requires that a parent or guardian must be notified as soon as possible. If a summons and postal requisition is served, it will always be sent to their parent or guardian. When the case is then brought before a youth court, the law will continue to enable the court to require a parent or guardian to attend during all stages of the subsequent proceedings where that is deemed appropriate.
Sir John Hayes
There are concerns about children in care. Again, the Minister makes a compelling case about the role of parents and guardians in respect of the clause and the amendment. However, many Members recognise that sometimes children in care are in very difficult circumstances. What provision will there be for those children and what consideration has the Minister given to their plight in those circumstances?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is difficult to have specific clauses for children in care in that sense, but I will give consideration to that important point and provide him with further information.
Courts also have a statutory duty to have regard to the welfare of children. They will always have the discretion as to whether to proceed to allocate in a child’s absence. We recognise that in the majority of cases, the courts may not deem it appropriate to proceed if a child is absent from the plea and allocation hearing. However, the clause provides the court with an important means of progressing a case involving a child where it is in the interests of justice to do so. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Stockton North to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for raising the issue of looked-after children. He helps to illustrate further why subsection (4) is inappropriate and why we support its removal. The Minister talked about the court being satisfied that notice has been served on the child. I am not sure how the court determines that, because children can always spirit things away and parents do not always find out until much later down the process.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but I took from what the Minister said that he is going to go away and think about that. When a combination of a diligent Opposition and a brave Government Back Bencher raises an issue and the Minister has given—I will not say concession—that acknowledgement, the wise thing for an Opposition to do is to take that as a win and withdraw their amendment.
Alex Cunningham
I think the right hon. Gentleman almost makes my argument for me. The Minister does not actually know how the subsection will apply to a particularly vulnerable group of young people, those in care. Perhaps it is the Minister who should support the amendment.
James Cartlidge
Just to clarify the point about our not knowing, we are talking about primary legislation setting out the core changes. The most important part, as always, is that there is discretion in the courts and that is inherent in almost all aspects of proceedings in the courts. I have great faith in the judiciary in these matters. The courts have discretion over whether to apply these—and other clauses that we have been talking about which have similar measures—to children and so on. Whatever the detail in respect of the most vulnerable children—I think I have answered some of that—the most important part is the discretion that exists which is inherent in our legal system.
Alex Cunningham
I too have tremendous confidence in our judiciary, but this is an additional power that it does not require. I suspect if it was consulted, it would not particularly want it either, unless the Minister has evidence to the contrary. I maintain that it is totally unnecessary.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman will know that the judiciary will not set out explicit views on proposed legislation. Of course, we have the Law Society, the Bar Council and other important stakeholders, and we feel that there has been significant consultation on these matters. I would add that there is detail to come in the normal way through the procedure rules which is then agreed by negative resolution. I will write further to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings and happily share that with the hon. Gentleman if he so wishes.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful for that, but again, the impacts on different groups of vulnerable children have not been fully thought through. It does not take into consideration what happens when a child fails to appear and perhaps nobody is aware that the child has been charged. I remain very concerned about the amendment and we will press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 9, page 25, line 5, at end insert—
“(5) If the court proceeds with the allocation decision procedure in the absence of the accused, the accused must continue to have the opportunity to plead guilty at any time before the start of the summary trial and still receive the full credit had he pleaded guilty at the first stage of the proceedings.”
This amendment would ensure that the accused is entitled to the full credit that they would have received had they pleaded guilty at the first stage of the proceedings.
Another area of concern is that the Bill could remove the potential for any credit or reduction in sentence to which the defendant would have been entitled for pleading guilty. That is because magistrates would be able to proceed to allocate the case on the basis of an assumption that the individual wishes to plead guilty. Currently, courts have the power to reduce a sentence if a defendant pleads guilty. A defendant who pleads guilty at the first stage of proceedings, defined as up to and including the allocation hearing, can benefit from a maximum reduction of one third of the sentence that would have been imposed if the case had progressed to a trial.
Justice notes:
“It is therefore beneficial to seek engagement from the defendant as to how they would like to plea rather than make it easier for Magistrates to assume based on the uncertain criterion of an ‘unacceptable reason’, since the measures may result in cases progressing whereas they otherwise may not have. This is counterproductive and may in fact result in cases being disposed of in a less efficient manner. This would therefore represent a significant disadvantage to both defendant and the criminal justice system.”
If we want a more efficient system, we should make sure that the measures will actually deliver one. For these reasons, the Opposition have tabled amendment 85, which would ensure that the accused is entitled to the full credit they would have received if they had pleaded guilty at the first stage of the proceedings, but where the court proceeds in their absence and presumes a non-guilty plea and they later affirmatively plead the contrary.
I would welcome the Minister’s assurances that full credit for a guilty plea would still be available in these circumstances. As we know, where appropriate, a defendant pleading guilty at an early stage saves the court time and money and can save the alleged victim and their family the stress and difficulty of a trial. We would not want to disincentivise appropriate pleas because the credit would be reduced due to the proposals in the Bill.
James Cartlidge
Amendment 85 seeks to ensure that a defendant, whose case is allocated in their absence, is still entitled to the full reduction on their sentence that they would have otherwise received had they appeared at court and pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. The location of the amendment in the new legislation means that it would only apply to children. However, as the hon. Gentleman’s explanatory statement makes reference to all “accused” persons, I hope that I have correctly understood that the amendment was intended for both child and adult defendant alike.
The safeguard that the hon. Member’s amendment intends to implement is already provided for under the existing Sentencing Act 2020 and the Sentencing Council’s guidelines for both child and adult defendants. The early guilty plea provisions of the guidelines are intended to support the efficient administration of justice and the early resolution of cases. The key difference is that the existing guidelines take into account the reasons why the defendant’s plea was delayed—which I believe is the right approach—rather than reducing the sentence irrespective of why they failed to appear.
Currently, where a defendant fails to appear at a plea and allocation hearing, the case stalls until the defendant appears; under the new provisions a case can progress. Defendants who fail to attend for allocation and then later plead guilty will create inefficiencies in the system; the court and prosecution will expend time and effort preparing for a trial that is not required, and victims and witnesses—who we should not forget—will be caused anxiety and inconvenience because they are told to attend court. In such circumstances, it is right that defendants should not always be entitled to the full reduction of one third off their sentence.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister just used the phrase “not always”. Could he expand on that, please?
James Cartlidge
The existing law and Sentencing Council’s guidelines provide that magistrates’ courts must consider whether there are particular circumstances which otherwise made it unreasonable to expect a defendant to have indicated a plea at an earlier stage in the proceedings. This means that defendants who fail to appear at the plea and allocation hearing for legitimate reasons will continue to be entitled to the full reduction of one third off their sentence—just to be clear. I therefore urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
As I have said, this is an important clause. We have considered the amendments, and I understand the motivations of the hon. Member for Stockton North, but just to remind us, under the current law, a magistrates court cannot reach a decision in the absence of an adult defendant about whether to allocate a triable either-way case for summary trial at magistrates court or jury trial at Crown court.
Until that decision is made, the case cannot progress any further. The only exceptions to the rule are if the defendant has agreed, through their legal representative, that the court can proceed in their absence or if the defendant’s disorderly conduct in the court means that it is not practicable to proceed in their presence.
That means that the timely progression of cases through the criminal justice system can stall indefinitely when defendants deliberately disengage from the proceedings—for example, by absconding on bail or refusing to leave their cell when held on remand. That can have serious negative impacts on victims and witnesses and cause serious delays to justice. In some cases, it may lead to witnesses withdrawing their support for the prosecution, causing cases to collapse and allowing perpetrators to go unpunished.
Clause 9 will enable magistrates courts to decide mode of trial for such cases in the absence of defendants in a wider range of circumstances than the law currently allows for, where the defendants fail without good cause to appear at court for their allocation hearing. Any decision to allocate in absence will be subject to the interests of justice test.
Adult defendants will retain the right to elect for a jury trial at Crown court up until the start of any subsequent summary trial, depending on why they failed to attend the allocation hearing. Defendants with legitimate reasons for failing to appear will get another opportunity to elect before the start of a summary trial allocated in their absence.
Although defendants under the age of 18 do not have the same right as adults to elect for a jury trial at Crown court, there are still occasions when a court will need to reach an allocation decision in a child’s absence. The current law only provides one exception that allows for this: where it is not practicable due to a legally represented child’s disorderly conduct before the court. Subsection 4 provides additional new circumstances—albeit far more limited than those provided for adults—that will enable the allocation of children’s cases in their absence in a way that acknowledges their increased vulnerability and provides additional safeguards to those already in the youth justice system.
Alex Cunningham
Briefly, the Minister has heard our arguments in relation to children throughout this. That, of course, remains our principal concern around this clause. I would ask that—whether for children or adults—the Government look again at the various safeguards that are in place, to see if there are opportunities for them to be improved. Again, the Government are concentrating on the difficult defendants rather than the wider range of defendants within the court system, even if they do have an opportunity at a later stage to elect for that particular type of trial. Despite our reservations about children, we will not oppose the clause, but we hope that the Government will reflect on the many things we have said, particularly on young people.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Sending cases to Crown Court for trial
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
Measures in this Bill will clear away obstacles in current legislation standing in the way of the courts carrying out more of their administrative case management outside of the courtroom. Clause 10 will help to deliver that by removing the legal requirement that defendants charged with indictable offences must first appear before a magistrates court to be informed that their case is being sent to the Crown court.
Under existing law, where a defendant has been charged with an indictable-only offence, such as conspiracy to defraud, and there is no other reason to hold a hearing—for example, to consider issues of bail—then a court hearing is surely superfluous. The defendant will be sent to the Crown court for trial regardless of his or her consent.
Similarly, in triable either-way cases, where a defendant has engaged with the court in writing or online and elected for a Crown court trial, equally there would be no need to hold a hearing. This provision will help to streamline criminal procedures by reducing the need for physical appearances in the magistrates court and removing unnecessary hearings. However, this is a discretionary power. A magistrates court will only exercise that power where it considers it appropriate and in the interests of justice to do so and no issues, such as bail, need to be considered.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Powers of Crown Court to remit cases to the magistrates’ court
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
We come to a particularly important clause in the context of court recovery.
Clause 11 will help create a more flexible and unified court system by providing the Crown court with increased flexibility to return certain cases to the magistrates court. Currently, the Crown court can return cases to the magistrates court in a very limited set of circumstances. The clause will provide the Crown court with a new general power to return cases to the magistrates court, including to the youth court, for trial and sentencing, when the judge is satisfied that magistrates have the necessary jurisdiction.
A defendant’s right to elect for jury trial is unaffected by this measure. Before the Crown court can return a case back to the magistrates court for trial, it must first obtain the defendant’s consent to do so if the defendant is over 18.
Clause 11 also requires the Crown court to provide reasons whenever it decides not to send a child defendant under the age of 18 back to the youth court. The clause recognises that the nature and seriousness of criminal cases can change as they progress through the criminal justice system. It helps to create a more efficient criminal court system by ensuring that cases are always heard in the most appropriate venue.
On the important point of court recovery, we estimate that clause 11 will make room for a further 400 Crown court sitting days. Those days will be saved on the following assumptions: that 5% of not guilty triable either-way cases would be sent back for trial and 10% of guilty triable either-way cases would be sent back for sentencing. The 5% and 10% figures are of eligible cases—in other words, cases that received less than six months at Crown court; that is based on pre-covid 2019 data. I remind colleagues that 400 days saved in the Crown court are 400 days when we can hear murder cases, rape cases and cases in the backlog. That is why the clause is incredibly important.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I was fortunate enough to witness a case at the Old Bailey last week, and to see how the process operates. There are people waiting quite a long time on remand to have their cases processed. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the terms of the clause will also reduce the amount of time that people spend on remand, waiting for their trial?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We should be cognisant of those on remand—whether in custody or on bail, but particularly those in custody. She makes exactly the right point: by definition, if we free up space in the Crown court through the clause, we are enabling more cases to be heard more quickly.
It is important to stress that those cases would go back to the magistrates court. We can do that because the “backlog” in the magistrates court is now far better; we have seen a huge reduction in the outstanding case volume because it has faster throughput. All of us would pay tribute to our voluntary judiciary. I was pleased yesterday to hold a meeting with MPs invited from all parties who are currently magistrates or have been magistrates. A number of hon. Friends were there and we had a very interesting discussion. I have great faith in the ability of the magistrates courts to take more cases and to assist the Crown court, which has the serious matter of indictable cases.
Without further ado, I should say that this is an important clause, which forms an important and significant part of court recovery.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Powers of youth court to transfer cases if accused turns 18
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
Clause 12 amends existing legislation relating to the power of the youth court to return defendants who have turned 18 before the start of trial to the adult magistrates court or to send them to the Crown court. Although the power is already operationally possible, the clause makes the process for exercising it much clearer. It also enables such decisions to be made other than in open court where appropriate, provided that the youth court serves certain documents on the defendant.
The clause also provides that, where the youth court proposes to remit a person to the adult magistrates court for an offence triable either way, the court must give the defendant the opportunity to elect for a jury trial. It also provides that the criminal procedure rules should set out the circumstances when joined cases or co-defendants are to be sent to the Crown court along with the main offence.
The clause aims to ensure that new provisions for adults, which enable cases to be sent to the Crown court without the need for a hearing, are replicated in the youth court system.
Alex Cunningham
As the Minister outlined, clause 12(3) inserts proposed new subsection (1D) in section 47 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, empowering the youth court to transfer the proceedings without an in-person hearing if the accused turns 18. Organisations that campaign on youth issues have raised several concerns about this cliff-edge clause.
Moving into the adult courts system can have a number of knock-on impacts on sentencing and the spending periods associated with convictions. It is therefore significant, and it is important that the accused is involved in the hearing. I am not convinced that it is appropriate to proceed with such a hearing in the absence of the accused via a written procedure. As the backlog continues to grow, more youths are likely to cross the significant age threshold while their case is still travelling through the justice system.
The Minister will be as concerned as I am by the backlogs in the youth courts, although they are not as significant as those in the adult system. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), confirmed in her answer to my written question No. 58390 that the average time taken to deal with youth cases had doubled recently from 52 days in April 2020 to 102 days in June 2021.
Sadly, no up-to-date figures are available. I suspect, given inaction and the pandemic, that the period of time for youth cases to be heard will have grown along with others. If it is taking months on end to get youth cases into court, it follows that more and more young people could be transferred to the adult courts. With the magistrates court backlog as it is, there could be further delay in getting the case to court, with young people being forced to lead their lives on hold, not knowing their fate. That is all the more reason why the Minister should think again about the new measure he wants to introduce.
I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can mitigate the cliff edge at the end of the youth justice system. It seems to me that simply proceeding with this jump on paper, without engaging the defendant, does the opposite. Yes, the person may be an adult by the time they get to court, but they were children at the time of the alleged offence. I repeat what I said about clause 9: we must do everything possible to ensure that justice is done and that children are properly protected.
James Cartlidge
I stress an important point to colleagues about children. I am afraid that it is a fact that they can commit very serious crimes. Although, in all aspects of the justice system that deal with younger people, we have to be cognisant of vulnerabilities, they have to face justice as well under our system as it is configured.
Let me deal with the point about whether the provision would lead to more cases of a defendant who has turned 18 after committing the offence being sent to the adult system. As the power already exists, the provision is not intended to result in any such increase. Alongside the provision to enable the Crown court to remit cases back to the magistrates court, the clause aims to ensure that courts have the discretion to ensure that cases are always heard in the most appropriate venue.
Alex Cunningham
Will the Minister make a statement on the record about his view of children being transferred from the youth court to adult courts, having committed the crime as a child? What is his position on those transfers?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman knows that this is not a new matter. When that is the case, when it comes to sentencing, the court will have to take into account the age at which the offence was committed. That is the most important point we need to remember.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Involvement of parent or guardian in proceedings conducted in writing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
Under the current law, when a defendant under 16 years old is charged with a crime, or is for any other reason brought before a court, the court must require a parent or guardian to attend court at all stages of the proceedings, unless it would be unreasonable to do so. When a defendant is 16 to 17 years old, the court may require a parent or guardian to attend.
The purpose of the provision is to ensure that this important safeguard applies to the new written and online procedures in the Bill—for example, when a child is invited to indicate a plea online, or receives a written notification that the court has decided to send their case directly to the Crown court.
Clause 13 provides that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the court must ascertain whether the parent or guardian of a child under 16 years old is aware of any written or online proceedings and, if not, to provide them with information about the proceedings. The court may do this for children aged 16 to 17 years old. Where it is appropriate to make a parent or guardian aware, the clause also requires the courts to provide them with information explaining the new written and online procedures, including the choices available to the child, and the effects of those choices.
Alex Cunningham
Given what I have already said about the need for full and proper safeguards for child defendants involved in the criminal process, I am sure it will be no surprise to the Minister that the Opposition are minded to oppose the clause. I will not go over again matters debated on clauses 8 and 12, but I wish to share the additional concern of the Bar Council, which says:
“Many parents of children coming into the criminal justice system have literacy issues and are often themselves vulnerable adults. Securing their involvement in writing, as a ‘safeguard’ for a child or youth, who is also to be dealt with by way of a written process, is an insufficient safeguard for the administration of criminal justice.
Face-to-face hearings that require the attendance of the parent, guardian or responsible adult mark the gravity of the proceedings. They also allow for further opportunities for appropriate intervention by relevant agencies on behalf of vulnerable children and youths, or in support of parents or guardians that need help and guidance, for which the legal representative is often the point of referral.”
I agree with that entirely, and clause 13 contributes to the watering down of the vital safeguards for child defendants. We are therefore unable to support it.
James Cartlidge
To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he is being entirely consistent. He will appreciate that it would be odd and inconsistent if we were to keep the other clauses and remove this clause, given that it has safeguards in relation to those clauses. Notwithstanding the fact that he has some overarching concerns, he will appreciate that it would be odd for us to remove it in those circumstances.
Sir John Hayes
I wish to add remarks similar to those I made about children in care. When the Minister sends a note, as he said he might, and gives this further consideration, perhaps he could also address this clause, as the same arguments I made earlier apply.
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend is correct; to be clear, this clause sits with the other clauses, as it contains safeguards relating to them. They are part and parcel of the same set. I will ensure that he receives the further information that he seeks.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to the Minister.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
The clause gives judges greater flexibility to manage criminal proceedings, avoid unnecessary hearings and speed up justice. It allows the Crown court to determine an application for a witness summons without a hearing. It also removes certain statutory requirements in criminal proceedings for the court to hold a hearing before lifting reporting restrictions. Courts will continue to have the option of convening a hearing in those cases, but this provision will enable them to make such decisions on the papers when they consider that appropriate and in the interests of justice. They will still have to consider any representations made by the parties concerned, including perhaps that the issue requires a hearing, before making a decision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Documents to be served in accordance with Criminal Procedure Rules
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.
James Cartlidge
It is vital that we ensure that the courts are accessible to everyone who needs to use them, and that includes how documents may be sent and received. In some older legislation, a particular document is deemed served only if sent by registered post, which is both inflexible and inefficient.
As we introduce the common platform, it is important to ensure that our court users have the opportunity to make full use of online processes where appropriate when interacting with the court and other interested parties. The clause gives effect to schedule 1, which contains amendments to existing legislation—14 Acts in total—to enable the service of documents in criminal proceedings in accordance with criminal procedure rules, by whichever means is the most appropriate, including by electronic means.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 16
Power to make consequential or supplementary provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
The clause gives the Lord Chancellor the power to make consequential or supplementary amendments to legislation in relation to any of the criminal procedure provisions in clauses 3 to 15. It is to be read in conjunction with clause 45, which covers regulations relating to all the provisions in the Bill.
The clause provides that the Lord Chancellor may amend, repeal or revoke any provisions within an Act of Parliament passed before this legislation or during this parliamentary Session. It will also enable the Lord Chancellor to amend, repeal or revoke any provisions within secondary legislation, irrespective of when that legislation was made. Any regulations that amend or repeal primary legislation are subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative resolution procedure. The wording is standard, and standard practice to have in a Bill, as I understand it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Consequential and related amendments
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.
James Cartlidge
The clause introduces schedule 2, which amends existing primary legislation as a result of the implementation of clauses 3 to 12. The amendments in schedule 2 take account of the new court processes we are introducing and the changes we are making to current criminal procedures. They include amendments to the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the Courts Act 2003, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which includes legislation about bail after arrest, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and the 2020 sentencing code. These are technical and consequential amendments required to enable these clauses to have the intended effect. I commend clause 17 and schedule 2 to the Committee
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 18, page 34, line 38, leave out “require online procedural assistance” and insert “are digitally excluded”.
This amendment would require regard to be had to the needs of persons who are digitally excluded when making Online Procedure Rules.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 87, in clause 24, page 41, line 30, leave out “require online procedural assistance” and insert “are digitally excluded”.
This amendment would require the Lord Chancellor to have regard to the needs of persons who are digitally excluded when allowing or disallowing Online Procedure Rules to be made.
Amendment 88, in clause 27, page 42, line 31, leave out “require online procedural assistance” and insert “are digitally excluded”.
This amendment would require the Lord Chancellor to arrange for the provisions of appropriate and proportionate support for persons who are digitally excluded.
Amendment 89, in clause 31, page 44, leave out lines 11 to 15 and insert—
““persons who are digitally excluded” means persons who, for reasons including their inability to access the internet or digital devices, lack of basic digital skills, or problems with confidence and motivation, experience difficulty in engaging with computers or online processes”.
This amendment inserts a new definition of “persons who are digitally excluded”.
New clause 2—Online Procedural Assistance—
“(1) Online Procedural Assistance, must be made available and accessible to any party or potential party to proceedings governed by Online Procedure Rules that requires it. In delivering this duty, the Lord Chancellor must have due regard to the intersection of digital exclusion with other factors, such as age, poverty, disability and geography and deliver support services accordingly.
(2) It must include assistance to enable such a party or potential party to have a reasonable understanding of the nature of the proceedings, the procedure applicable under Online Procedure Rules and of how to access and navigate such procedure. To this effect, it will provide both advice and technical hardware, as appropriate, and will provide assistance to such individuals throughout the course of their proceedings.
(3) Anyone who requires Online Procedural Assistance must have the option of receiving it either via remote appointments or in-person appointments at a site local to them.
(4) Online Procedural Assistance must include, for a party or potential party whose first language is not English, assistance, by interpretation or translation as appropriate, in a language that is familiar to the party or potential party.
(5) The delivery of Online Procedural Assistance must be evaluated at yearly intervals by an independent evaluation team. To assist in these evaluations, data must be routinely collected relating to the protected characteristics of those using the service, outcomes of cases that used Online Procedural Assistance and the frequency and location of the appointments provided. This must also be made publicly available.”
This new clause clarifies the nature of online procedural assistance.
Alex Cunningham
We now move to part 2, chapter 2 of the Bill, which sets up powers to make online procedure rules for specified proceedings in civil, employment, family and tribunals to be started, conducted, progressed or disposed of by “electronic means”. The Opposition recognise the importance of expanding the use of online procedures in our court processes, and its role in making the system more efficient and cost effective, and so are broadly supportive of the provisions of this chapter.
However, we seek some reassurances about the provisions for digitally excluded individuals in the Bill. Research by Lloyds Bank shows that 16% of the UK population lack basic digital skills and are unable to
“participate in a digital society.”
It is vital that these people are not left behind by the provisions in this Bill.
The amendments aim to introduce further safeguards and accountability and scrutiny mechanisms at points we think may be appropriate, so as to ensure the measures do not preclude practical access to justice. I look forward to hearing what the Minister thinks of them.
The amendments relate to the parts of the Bill that refer to
“persons who require online procedural assistance.”
I thank Justice and the Public Law Project for their assistance and input. This phrase is used at a number of points in the Bill, including at clause 18(3)(a), which requires
“Powers to make Online Procedure Rules…are to be exercised with a view to securing…that practice and procedure under the Rules are accessible and fair,”.
Clause 18(4) states:
“For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), regard must be had to the needs of persons who require online procedural assistance.”
Clause 24(4) states:
“In deciding whether to allow or disallow rules,”—
made by the Online Procedure Rule Committee—
“the Lord Chancellor must have regard to the needs of persons who require online procedural assistance.”
Clause 27 places a duty on the Lord Chancellor to arrange for support that is
“appropriate and proportionate for persons who require online procedural assistance.”
Such persons are defined in Clause 31, which states
“‘persons who require online procedural assistance’ means persons who, because of difficulties in accessing or using electronic equipment, require assistance in order to initiate, conduct, progress or participate in proceedings by electronic means in accordance with Online Procedure Rules;”.
The Bar Council’s briefing for Second Reading noted:
“It is unclear if “persons who require procedural assistance” is a socio-economic, physical, mental or other difficulty.”
It also recognises that this
“seems to raise potential equality and diversity issues.”
Justice is also concerned that the definition is “unduly narrow and unclear”. Although the Opposition support the inclusion of the duty to arrange support for persons who require online procedural assistance, we share the concern that the current definition of such persons undermines the effectiveness of the duty. Justice explains that people may be able to access or use electronic equipment but may still be unable to effectively engage with or participate in online proceedings for other reasons—for example, people who speak English as a second language, people with learning difficulties, cognitive or sensory impairments, and those who require different modes of communication, such as braille or sign language. Furthermore, digital exclusion can be situational, because people
“who might normally be confident online may struggle with online services when faced with crises such as divorce or debt which reduce people’s confidence and capability.”
Those are some of the findings from Justice’s excellent 2018 report, “Preventing Digital Exclusion from Online Justice”, of which I am sure the Minister is aware. Justice also notes that it is unclear whether the definition as currently drafted would include people who are able to use electronic equipment but do not have access to the internet—for example, because they cannot afford the data, as opposed to the equipment, such as a phone, tablet or computer. Will the Minister please provide some clarification on this point? I hope the intention is that the definition will cover such scenarios.
In its 2018 report, Justice argued for the need to provide effective support to those who are digitally excluded, in order to realise the full potential of online justice services and improve access to justice for many people. In the report, Justice used the term “digitally excluded” to describe people who, for reasons such as
“an inability to access the internet or digital services, lack of basic digital skills, or problems with confidence and motivation”,
experience difficulty in engaging with computers and online processes. We think reflecting that meaning in the legislation would ensure that the duty to provide support to those who need it would be most effective and would encompass all those who may need assistance. To that end, amendment 89 inserts a new definition into clause 31, stating that
“‘persons who are digitally excluded’ means persons who, for reasons including their inability to access the internet or digital devices, lack of basic digital skills, or problems with confidence and motivation, experience difficulty in engaging with computers or online processes.”
Amendments 86, 87 and 88 insert the phrase
“persons who are digitally excluded”
in the place of
“persons who require online procedural assistance”
at the points I mentioned previously. The Opposition and Government have the same intention here: to provide support to those who need it, so that no one is precluded from accessing justice. I hope the Minister can see where we are coming from and will look favourably on the amendments.
I turn now to new clause 2, which is another approach to dealing with some of the concerns. It simply clarifies the nature of online procedural assistance, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address each of its subsections and tell the Committee whether they are matters that he and his team have already considered, and whether he envisions that the Bill as drafted would cover them. Does the duty on the Lord Chancellor currently include consideration of other factors that intersect with digital exclusion, such as age, poverty, disability and geography? The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was helpful on these issues in an earlier debate, when he spoke up for older people. I am sure that he, too, will want answers to our questions and, I hope, a few of his own.
Will the assistance cover both advice and technical hardware, and will it be available throughout the proceedings? Will persons receiving the assistance be able to do so via either a remote appointment or an in-person appointment at a site local to them? For those whose first language is not English, will assistance be provided through interpretation or translation, as appropriate, in a language that is familiar to the party or potential party? Will the assistance be monitored and evaluated at regular intervals? If so, how and by who? We want to be able to offer the Government keen support for the proposals, so I look forward to the Minister’s response to the concerns we have raised.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity to talk through the issues of digital exclusion. These are important issues. As colleagues know, much of the Bill, particularly once we go beyond the judicial review clauses, relates to digitisation and I feel very strongly that digitisation has many benefits.
Colleagues will remember the evidence from the Scottish Law Society. One of its most interesting points was how, in Scotland, its experience had been that the use of video technology and so on had kept justice going during the pandemic. That has certainly been the case in England and Wales. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is not saying otherwise—he is looking at those who are excluded. In principle, in many ways digitisation can enhance access to justice. In the greatest collective challenge to access to justice that this country has seen for many decades—the pandemic—digitisation maintained access to justice when otherwise many more cases would have been stuck and the backlog would have been even worse.
I have two points to make on a personal note. I am not a lawyer by background, but I spent my year off as an outdoor clerk in the High Court, carrying bundles of paperwork around the Royal Courts of Justice, from window to window. Some were shut in my face, because it was not the right window or the person was going off for lunch—it is quite common, actually. There has always been an enormous amount of paperwork in the system, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith, who I believe was a barrister, will know. Trying to reduce those bundles will take time. In the Crown court in particular, we will still see large bundles of papers. We will still have large paper packs for the jury to look at; in many ways, that is still the most effective method. Stripping out the paperwork and increasing digitisation will have its moments of frustration for practitioners and staff. It will have its downsides. The system will never be perfect, but in general and in principle digitisation enhances the system.
The second personal point is about my business idea. Mr Rosindell, you will know about house prices in London. The idea was to enable groups of friends who were renting to buy property together. It was for flatmates to buy and was called “Share to Buy”. Once we had come up with it and had approached a lender, who was supportive, we realised that the problem was how to get people to apply. We decided that the only way to do it was online. At that time, there were not really online mortgage applications. We thought at great length about what to do if people do not have internet access and want to make a paper-based application. Obviously, that scheme is not as significant as the legal system, but the same principles apply. I am a great believer in the ability of the digital sphere to enhance accessibility, to increase people’s access to important things, alongside having the appropriate safeguards and support, which are the two key words.
We recognise that those who are digitally excluded may need assistance in starting or progressing their case online. Therefore, HMCTS has set up a digital service that is designed with and for users to help navigate the justice system. It will be supported through HMCTS user contact functions, who will issue guidance and help on the journey through the service over the phone and related call-centre channels, such as web chat. As I said in discussion on earlier clauses, HMCTS recently awarded a national contract to deliver positive and practical solutions to support users and break down barriers to digital inclusion across civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions.
Although the measures seek to direct as many users as possible through primary digital channels, some users may have problems accessing digital services. The hon. Member for Stockton North made some quite specific points about geography, age and disability. We recognise that some users may have particular problems. As I noted in the previous discussion, paper forms will remain available, and work is ongoing to review and simplify those forms. HMCTS will ensure users receive equal service no matter what channel they use to engage.
Amendment 86 would require regard to be had to the needs of persons who are digitally excluded when making online procedure rules, changing, as a number of the amendments would do, the terminology “require online procedural assistance” for that of being “digitally excluded”. Amendment 87 would require the Lord Chancellor to have regard to the needs to persons who are digitally excluded when allowing or disallowing online procedure rules to be made.
The duty to have regard to the needs of those who may be digitally excluded is addressed in clause 27, which requires the Lord Chancellor to make provisions for those who require additional support. Through that measure, court users will be supported through their online journey in person and remotely. When considering whether to allow or disallow rules, the Lord Chancellor must have regard to those who require online procedural assistance.
Amendment 88 would require the Lord Chancellor to arrange for the provision of appropriate and proportionate support for persons who are digitally excluded. The measures already seek to ensure appropriate and proportionate support for persons who are digitally excluded or who, in the Bill’s terms,
“require online procedural assistance”
so that they are able to engage with online procedures. That includes assistive technology, such as a screen reader, and simplifying language to ensure that users understand what they are required to do.
Sir John Hayes
I was delighted to hear that in his earlier life the Minister was a kind of Wemmick figure to Mr Jaggers before his expectations were even greater and he came here. His account of carrying papers around the courts perhaps prepared him for the immense amounts of paperwork that one deals with as a member of the Government, from my memory of it. However, I could not disagree with him more on this part of the Bill, for three reasons.
The first is accessibility. There are profound problems with moving what was previously a personal connection or a written connection with any organisation or body to an online one. It is particularly disadvantageous for vulnerable groups, including people with learning difficulties, people with mental health problems, people with particular disabilities such as hearing loss, and the unsighted. The hon. Member for Stockton North mentioned the elderly too, and the Minister acknowledged that point in respect of his own parents, who he said were not as switched on to these matters as he doubtless is.
There are other issues too, such as security and confidentiality. There is an immense myth. I know that from having been in the IT industry and having been Security Minister. The combination of those experiences taught me a long time ago that online procedures and processes are very hard to secure beyond doubt, so I have great doubts about whether confidentiality can be maintained as it can by more conventional means.
Fundamentally, my problem is one of community. We have to ask in what kind of place we want to live, and how we want to conduct our lives. That applies to our work in Parliament, to the exercise of the law, and to business, as the hon. Member for Stockton North said. Personal interaction and the intimacy associated with face-to-face engagement are critical to framing and affirming our sense of community and connection with others. The more remote and anonymous we make that engagement, the more we will undermine that sense of what we share, so I have profound doubts about the whole move to online government, as I mentioned earlier.
The Minister is being extremely adroit in his handling of the Committee; indeed, I sent him a note to say how deftly he handled my earlier inquiries. I do not mean to patronise him, but I think he can be very proud of his performance. I have been in that seat many times, as he knows, and I know how tough it is. However, when I raised these matters previously he suggested—slightly untypically and rather clumsily—that I was regressive. He must know that the very concept of progress is suspect, because believing in progress means believing in a destination—a pre-ordained destination towards which we are all hurtling.
In truth, of course, that is profoundly philosophically unsound. I can only assume that, standing there under those dreadful Whigs in Gladstone’s Cabinet, the Minister has adopted the Whig theory of history that we are all merely actors who are acting out a script written for us by some other power. There is nothing regressive about my remark; there is perhaps something human about it. I want more politics on a human scale; I want it to be safe, secure and accessible to all, and I want it to affirm our sense of community and build on what we share.
For all those reasons, I seek extremely profound reassurances from the Minister—of the kind that he has offered previously, in the spirit that I recommended a few moments ago—that my constituents, particularly the most vulnerable, will not be disadvantaged by the legislation. The hon. Member for Stockton North alluded to geography. Well, some people in rural areas such as South Holland and The Deepings are not yet “online”, and I am sure that that applies to constituencies represented by Members on both sides of the Committee. I do not want those people to be at a disadvantage.
The Minister is right that during the pandemic we had to make do, and that did have some beneficial effects: it forced us to think about how we could perhaps do things more efficiently. In the end, however, I was desperate to get back to the business of meeting my constituents face to face, and of debating and engaging in person with colleagues in Parliament. I am sure that that applies to most right hon. and hon. Members in this House. Let us not hurtle down the road to moving everything online, only to look back in years to come and think, “My goodness! What have we done and what have we lost?”
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I shall be brief. I felt half invited by the Minister to respond, but I will not tell a whole war story from the courts, as we used to do on the Justice Committee. I commiserate with him for his treatment by the Royal Courts of Justice; it is nothing personal that the windows are being shut in his face.
I will shock the Committee again: I agree with the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. I am afraid that I am one of those people who still carries large amounts of paper around and cannot quite manage otherwise. That is possibly why it is good that I am not a practitioner any longer: the courts have adapted quite well to new technology—practitioners, the judiciary and the senior judiciary in particular are extremely adroit in that respect. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North that we have in common with the Government the intention to ensure that things are done as efficiently, quickly and economically as possible. I entirely agree that new technology has a big role to play in all that.
The Committee may hear a “but” coming. The “but” is that there are several ways, but two in particular, in which we must be very wary. First, there is the issue of access. We have all had to learn to deal with new technology, and an example of that is how we advanced our ability to do so under the stresses of covid. Zooming is as common to us now as face-to-face meetings.
Sir John Hayes
It is a mark of both the sense and sensibility of the scrutiny of the Committee that the hon. Gentleman should be defending the Minister and the Government’s position from my mild but profound attack. It is a good Committee where that kind of communion, if I may put it that way, can be enjoyed.
Andy Slaughter
I am going to impress the right hon. Gentleman even more in a moment by making a 180° turn and joining his critique of the Minister.
There may well be times when Zooming is more efficient and appropriate, but there will be many times when face-to-face meetings are more appropriate, including meetings with constituents. During the long debates that we had on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, I cautioned many times that it moved too quickly to exclude people from the system in the name of efficiency. There is a danger that we will do that here.
The Minister fairly said that we must proceed with caution and be aware of some people’s digital limitations. It is easy to say that, but it is more difficult to ensure that it happens, because the same people who struggle with matters online are those who cannot make their voices heard, and they just disappear from the system. We have excluded people even though it was not intentional.
A second important category—coroners—was touched on. I will not say much now because I expect that we shall come on to the plans to move those online when we come to that section. The Minister will remember that Mr Rebello, senior coroner for the Liverpool and Wirral coroner area and secretary of the Coroners Society, said that he liked to have everybody in the room. He was not saying that for its own sake, but because there are times, when evidence is being heard or judicial decisions are being made rather than in administrative hearings, when it is important for people to be present. Although doing things remotely may have been the best that we could do during covid, that will not always be the case.
I simply caution that if justice is to be properly done, we should be cautious before we throw out the methods that have served us not just for decades but for centuries in assessing the quality of evidence, in advocacy and in ensuring that we get to the best result we can in every case. I hope that we will be as modern and efficient as we can, and use as much technology as we can, but not at the price of excluding people or of not seeing justice done.
Alex Cunningham
I appreciate the Minister’s sharing information about his past career; it is fascinating to find out what people have done in their previous lives. Perhaps one angle of his business could have been encouraging people to move to the north where, instead of buying a share in a house for £150,000, they could buy a lovely three-bedroom semi-detached house in Stockton; have access to our wonderful newly opened Globe theatre; and be 30 minutes from the Yorkshire moors, 40 minutes from the Yorkshire dales and only an hour from the Northumberland coast.
James Cartlidge
Very quickly, because it is incredibly relevant, I assure the hon. Gentleman that our business was entirely national. The reason that it was able to operate nationally, in every part of the country, is because it operated online.
Alex Cunningham
That is why we welcome the way that we can move forward, even in the world of justice. We can move online as much as possible, but the Minister knows how much we have been pressing on the issue of safeguards.
The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was concerned that some people in his area, as in other areas of the country, might not have access. When he talked about face-to-face meetings and the importance of community, it struck me that he said that he did not want us to underestimate how important that is and to undermine those personal relationships. I have maintained throughout my contributions to the Committee that we do not want justice to be undermined as a result of moving online.
The Minister spoke about the Scottish experience. It did keep it going, but for those who had access to systems. He acknowledged the need for appropriate support and recognised that more detail must be provided. We look forward to seeing that detail in future.
My real concern is that some of the language in the Bill is a little on the soft side. I would rather see it more clearly defined and nailed down, to ensure that the people who are most likely to be excluded from digital services are given all the support they need, which might even mean providing them with the data that they require to use the systems that are available to them.
In the light of the debate, however, I do not intend to press any of the amendments to the vote, but I say again that some of the language is soft. We need that detail and I hope that there will be no devils in it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Scott Mann.)
Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Third sitting)
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is to be consumed during sittings except for the water provided. Members are expected to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses. Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or new clause to a Division should indicate when speaking to it that they wish to do so.
Clause 1
Prohibition on keeping primates without a licence
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out from “primate” to second “under”.
This amendment would prohibit the keeping of primates as pets in England.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey, and to be back in Committee Room 10 discussing these issues, which some of us have spent many a happy hour doing. I look forward to an excellent debate over the next few days. I think we all enjoyed the excellent witness sessions last week, from which we learned a great deal, and there is much common ground. Both parties promised this Bill in their election manifestos, and I am delighted that the Government have put Members on the Committee who have expertise and interest in it. I strongly encourage them to speak, intervene and vote with their hearts when the moment comes. I am looking at the Government Whip; I know that she will encourage them to do that.
On one level, the Bill is quite dry, and it is a mixture of things, but it sits within the wider framework of the Government’s action plan for animal welfare, which was published some months ago, and was well received by Members on both sides of the House. It covers a lot of ground. When rereading it, I could not help noticing that, as in many documents from Governments of all colours, there is a kind of year zero, as if nothing happened before 2010 and all the good things have happened since. Indeed, in his introductory speech on Second Reading, the Secretary of State referred to 1822 and then jumped to 2010. Of course, Labour is quite proud of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which was significant. Much that we will discuss comes on the back of that groundbreaking legislation, but we will let that pass in a spirit of generosity, as we work together.
There is a slight problem with understanding how all the legislation fits together. That starts with the amendment and clause 1. When the animal welfare action plan refers to the Bill, it talks about
“ending the low-welfare practice of keeping primates as pets”.
I immediately wonder what that means. There is not a ban, as far as I can see. I will return to that point later. The plan starts with sentience, which is quite logical, although of course, as so often in this place, we have not started with that. Debate on that started in the other place, and doubtless we will talk about it in the months, or possibly weeks, ahead.
The plan goes on to cover animals abroad. I will perhaps gently press the Minister occasionally during these discussions on where that measure has got to. There seems to be some speculation that it may have got lost temporarily. We would be interested to hear more, as some of the issues that we would have liked to raise in the Bill may well have been in that measure.
Overall, there is a slight sense of an out-of-control shopping trolley veering along the aisles of animal welfare goodies, seeking to find the odd crowd-pleaser along the way. That is not how we would have done things, but here we are. There is a rather odd mix of things in the Bill, and perhaps to everyone’s slight surprise, we begin the journey of tackling all the issues around animal welfare with primates. Amendment 91 to clause 1 deals with that. It is a simple amendment, because it merely translates what is in the Bill to what was promised in the Conservative manifesto.
I admit to being slightly unkind, but I took another look at the manifesto—during elections, we all rush around and try to find time to read manifestos—and was delighted to find a happy picture of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. I know we are not supposed to wave things around when we are speaking, but I have a copy with me: it is a very nice picture. Next to him is a list of all the animal welfare things that are going to be done, including this statement:
“We will ban keeping primates as pets.”
The manifesto does not say that the Conservatives would ban the keeping of primates as pets unless someone has a licence. That is rather different, but that is what the Bill says. It goes into great detail on how a licensing system will be set up, and we will spend a lot of time discussing that this morning. However, that is not banning the keeping of primates as pets. Despite my attempt to make this amendment, I suspect that we will go on to discuss many of those issues. There are a range of other things in the manifesto, including an ivory ban, which I have referenced, so I commend the Conservative manifesto to Conservative Members, and we will hold them to account on it.
During the evidence sessions, we heard excellent evidence from witnesses on this issue. It is clear that the number of primates in this country that are not in zoos or research institutions is hard to estimate. We really do not know the number, which makes this quite difficult. However, I understood from the evidence that there are very few people who can provide the zoo-equivalent conditions in which, the Government argue, primates can reasonably be kept. The number may be hundreds, although I am sceptical that it is as many as that. We heard from many organisations, both in oral and written evidence. Interestingly, we also heard from Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading who believe, as Labour does, that primates should not be kept as pets, whether licensed or not. That is because primates are intelligent and socially complex creatures. Their physical, behavioural and environmental needs mean that they cannot be kept properly in a household environment. However well-intentioned the keeper, their suffering is all but inevitable. I will press the Minister on what a good environment might look like. We heard what a bad environment looks like—the awful cases of people keeping primates in parrot cages—but what conditions are good enough? I do not think that that is set out in the Bill.
Primates kept in domestic settings are liable to experience a host of welfare issues that can result in profound physical and psychological harm. For good welfare, both physical and psychological health must be ensured. Primates need to be kept in social groups, in complex, specially designed indoor and outdoor facilities, as I have just said. Generally, when kept as pets, primates do not have access to such facilities, and sadly, all too often, owners lack knowledge and understanding of the species they own, with inevitably serious welfare implications. That is why we all want this to stop.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the consultation on the Bill have exposed some awful stories of primates being kept in the kind of cages that I have described. They are also given unsuitable diets and can become sick as a result of not being exposed to proper light and heat levels. The evidence against keeping primates as pets is so strong that it has resulted in broad consensus among all those concerned with animal welfare that it should stop.
The danger of a licensing system, I am afraid, is that it will potentially allow the private owning, breeding and selling of pets to continue in perpetuity. This is not a ban; it is a licence. The RSPCA, Blue Cross and Wildlife and Countryside Link have all expressed their grave disappointment that the Government have opted for a licensing system rather than a ban. The British Veterinary Association has also raised concerns about the system.
We have identified a further inconsistency. Schedule 5, which the Committee will debate on Thursday when we come on to zoos, sets out the underlying principle of the Secretary of State’s zoo standards and licensing system: that as a society we do not approve of the keeping and breeding of animals in captivity unless there is a conservational and educational remit. Zoos are not allowed to keep animals for entertainment or hobby purposes only.
If privately owned primates are to be kept and traded under licence to the zoo welfare standard, frankly we think that the accompanying principles should be the same. It is widely recognised elsewhere in Europe that personal gain or hobby is not a sufficient justification for welfare compromises on the captivity of a wild animal. We believe that there is a need for a licensing system for genuine rescue and sanctuary, but that is different, and it would require clear definition and criteria.
Let us examine a further objection. The Government argue that the Bill will ban keeping primates as pets but will allow individuals who can keep primates to zoo quality standards to maintain ownership. A recent conversation with the RSPCA reconfirmed what is palpably obvious: whether an animal is deemed a pet is based on the purpose of keeping it, not on the standard of care. That position is backed up by the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018.
An animal kept in a domestic environment, however fancy and well equipped, is a pet. I know of several cats in Cambridge that live in the lap of luxury—not mine, sadly—with a quality of life high enough to please even the wealthiest of individuals, but it would be ludicrous to say that they are not pets.
The licensing system proposed in the Bill categorically fails to live up to the promises of the manifesto on which the Government were elected, which is why we have tabled amendment 91. I am afraid that it is for the Minister to explain why she does not think that the manifesto promise should be honoured.
Our amendment would put an end to keeping primates as pets. It would avoid the inevitable failures that I fear will result from the Government’s proposed licensing system—not least because, beyond allowing the practice of keeping pets as primates to continue, licensing will effectively create a sanctioned system for breeding and selling primates, as the RSPCA noted in oral evidence. That will do nothing to reduce the primate population; it could allow it to grow and could allow people to continue to profit from the domestic ownership of primates.
In the evidence session, we also heard the likely consequences of the Government’s expectation that local authorities with no extra resources will have to pick up the pieces of what we think is a flawed system. As we all know, the past 11 years have left local authorities struggling, to put it mildly. Most are struggling, and when it comes to animal welfare duties, I fear that many lack the experience and skills to carry out the task—a point to which we will return. Now it seems that the Government are proposing that primates whose keepers fail to meet the requirements of the licence should become the responsibility of the local council.
In our discussion of the Bill’s various clauses and amendments, there is an issue that I think the Committee should address. It is not clear what will happen to the potentially thousands of pet primates that will be taken from their owners as a result of measures introduced in the Bill. Whether there is a complete ban or a licensing system, that question really has to be addressed.
Beyond the care of primates whose keepers are unable to obtain a licence, there is also the question of enforcement. I fear that the system will put extra strain on councils. They will need to oversee licensing and conduct premise inspections, which are quite likely to have to be carried out by people who are not primate experts. Potentially, the system will also leave primates at the whim of a postcode lottery: their standard of care will vary significantly, depending on which council has responsibility for them.
Then there is the licensing. Despite the claims that the Bill will dramatically improve the welfare of primates, I am afraid that the Government are at risk of presiding over a situation in which animal welfare organisations are expected to give an opinion on licensing standards that they have not seen, and we in turn are expected to vote on licensing standards that we have not seen. This is an important decision, so we will press the amendment to a vote. There is a clear choice: a ban or a licensing system. The amendment will give many Committee members the opportunity to fulfil one of their election manifesto commitments if they come with us and ban the keeping of primates as pets.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. As I said at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate, this House has been passing animal welfare legislation since 1635. I very much view the Bill as being on that continuum. We try to deal with all creatures great and small, but we cannot do that in every single Bill. I view the Bill as part of the ongoing journey since 1635. I see it not as a wobbly supermarket trolley, but as being on a trajectory towards better animal welfare. I will focus my remarks on the Bill, when I can; we will deal with many amendments that seek to go broader.
“Primates are long-lived, intelligent, socially-complex animals. They engage in imaginative problem-solving, form intricate social relationships, and display complex patterns of behaviour. Being social is a striking feature of primates, and perhaps the most important in terms of meeting their needs. With few exceptions, they live in complex societies that can comprise tens of individual animals.”
That statement is found in our “Code of Practice for the Welfare of Privately Kept Non-Human Primates”. It is always worth remembering that we are all, of course, primates in the wider sense. That code sets important parameters within which primates thrive.
The amendment seeks an outright ban with no exemptions. We need to focus on the welfare of the primate. We propose a licensing scheme for primates who are kept outside zoos, but to very high zoo standards. The fear is that if we have an outright ban, as the amendment suggests, we would trigger a rehoming crisis, which might lead to primates being euthanised. It is possible that there are up to 5,000 primates being kept privately in the UK, and if a ban comes in overnight, they would overwhelm rehoming capacity.
We heard powerful evidence last week from Dr Jo Judge of the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums and Dr Alison Cronin of Monkey World, who both supported our approach. Dr Judge said:
“there are a number of responsible, registered—with BIAZA—keepers who keep their animals to…the highest level. We are very much in favour of banning
primates
“as pets but allowing a licensing system for responsible keepers.”––[Official Report, Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Public Bill Committee, 9 November 2021; c. 24, Q32.]
Dr Cronin said:
“somebody’s back garden might have higher standards than…Monkey World”,––[Official Report, Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Public Bill Committee, 9 November 2021; c. 29, Q41.]
which is her own organisation.
Some of these private keepers help zoos manage excess primate stock, including primates who, for temperamental reasons, are not suited to a zoo environment. In our public consultation on this issue, only 19 respondents out of 4,500 opposed our licensing scheme.
I reassure the hon. Member for Cambridge that as part of the new standards for keeping primates, the code of practice will be backed up with secondary legislation that will be subject to the affirmative procedure in this House, so we will have many more opportunities to consider the way in which they are kept, and I respectfully ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister gives it a good try, and I do not dispute her good intentions, but I think there is a fundamental problem. A number of responsible keepers could mean anything from zero to 5,000, and we heard in evidence that numbers are relatively low. My worry is that the crisis that she talks about will happen regardless. That is the problem, and the Bill presents no solution to it, so far as I can see.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “anywhere in England”.
This amendment results in Part 1 of the Bill applying to Wales. There follow a number of other amendments in the name of the Minister which enable Part 1 to operate in relation to Wales. Functions under Part 1 that in England are conferred on the Secretary of State will, in Wales, be conferred on the Welsh Ministers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 71 to 78, 5 to 9, 79 to 81, 15 to 17, 19 to 25, 27 and 28, 30 to 35, 59 and 60, and 65 to 67.
Victoria Prentis
We have worked closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that the protections that this Bill provides to primates in England can be extended to Wales.
Daniel Zeichner
I am not going to make a longer speech. I am very pleased to see that the Welsh Government have come forward on this Bill. I am sure they would share many of the Opposition’s objections, but we are not going to go through amendment by amendment and query it. Clearly there are a lot of technical changes that have been made, and it would be in the interest of the Committee to get them through.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
This clause, as amended, will prohibit the keeping of primates in England and Wales without a primate licence unless the primates are being kept under another licensing regime, for example, the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. Anyone keeping a primate without a licence, or without being subject to an exemption, will be committing an offence and will be subject to the maximum penalty of an unlimited fine on conviction. The goal of this legislation is to ensure that primates are not kept in unsuitable welfare conditions that are bad for their health. Primates are wild animals with complex needs. Where keepers have sufficient knowledge, time and resources it is possible to meet a primate’s needs in private ownership, as it is in a zoo or rescue centre. I therefore move that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
This is the nub of the question: is it possible for these creatures to be kept in these kind of standards? I am not sure if the issue is whether it should be private or public ownership. We will possibly come back to the definition of zoos, rescue centres and sanctuaries, which prompt some big questions. There is a profound difference of opinion here. When one sees the documentaries one is struck by how complex and sophisticated these creatures are. There has been a long philosophical debate over the centuries considering our relationship with these complicated creatures, and I suspect that this is not the end of the story. I fear that we will look back—I am not sure we all will, but some of us will—in decades to come and think that we could have moved quicker towards a position where we treat these creatures with the respect that they deserve. I fear we have not gone far enough today. I suspect that we are now going to go on to discuss the details of a licensing system, but the Opposition do not think that there should be one.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Transitional provision relating to primates
Amendment made: 71, in schedule 1, page 34, line 7, after “regulations” insert—
“made by the appropriate national authority”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment provides that regulations under paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 1 are to be made by the appropriate national authority.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 115, in schedule 1, page 34, line 15, leave out—
“basic welfare needs of the primate”
and insert —
“welfare needs of the primate as required by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Code of Practice for the welfare of privately kept non-human primates”.
This amendment would clarify that keepers must meet the Animal Welfare Act requirements and the associated Code.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 114, in clause 15, page 8, line 29, leave out—
“basic welfare needs of the primate”
and insert—
“welfare needs of the primate as required by the Animal Welfare Act 2006”.
This amendment would clarify that keepers must meet the Animal Welfare Act requirements and the associated Code.
Daniel Zeichner
We are obviously disappointed that we are on to these amendments, because we hoped the strength of our arguments would see the overwhelming weight of the Government machine defeated. We are where we are, but I say to Conservative Members, the Government are not that scary—though perhaps they are scary actually, as I am terrified.
Labour will continue to work in collaboration with animal welfare groups, zoos and primate experts in pushing for a full ban. That will remain one of our key animal welfare policies, and it may well become an issue at any future election. However, if the Government are determined to steam ahead with—as we call it—this manifesto-breaking primate-licensing system, it is important that we get as good a system as we can, so we will begin to go through the proposals in detail.
I have one observation, which I will probably come back to: given the numbers of people to whom this licensing system might apply, we will spend a lot of time and effort on a very complicated system. Furthermore, I notice that, under a clause later in the Bill, the system could be modified for use for other creatures. Is this something of a Trojan horse? The Minister looks entirely innocent, of course.
We might need to think about the system in those terms, however, because a system that is suitable for primates might not necessarily be suitable for other creatures. Given how this place works, such changes can be made through regulations and, even though we euphemistically say that that is subject to rigorous parliamentary scrutiny, we know full well that for anything in regulations to be overturned is rare—it is hard to do—so we are thinking about the measure in wider terms than just primates. I cast that as a warning.
Our amendments 115 and 114 seek to improve the welfare of primates by altering the language of the Bill to ensure that, during the transition period proposed by the Bill and during suspension periods, keepers are obliged to ensure that primates’ welfare meets the standards required by the Animal Welfare Act, to which I have referred. The Act sets out a broad set of principles that will be useful in the Bill, to apply to any licensing system such as this one. I hope the Government do not have a problem with our proposal. The wording in the Bill seems a touch meagre, because it requires keepers to fulfil only the
“basic welfare needs of the primate”.
The amendments strengthen the schedule
I hope that the Minister will explain the thinking behind the temporary, transitional registration approach. I found the extra level slightly hard to follow. I understand the concerns about a possible sudden rush, and about how we do not wish to create a welfare crisis, but if the system only lasts for a year, the real danger is that we just postpone the point at which that rush and the problem begin to happen.
I might have misunderstood the nature of the proposal, which may not be there just for a year, in which case it becomes a permanent transition—[Interruption.] The Minister is shaking her head, so I possibly have understood it correctly. In the evidence sessions, the Committee did not explore that as closely as we perhaps should have done, because we will have a licensing system and a transitional registration system.
We will not press our amendment to a vote. This is a genuine attempt to understand what the Government propose. I continue to fear that it has not been thought through fully, in part because the problem is so difficult. I will welcome the Minister’s comments.
Victoria Prentis
Amendment 114 states that primates kept under direction must have their welfare needs met as laid out under the Animal Welfare Act, as the hon. Gentleman said. We all agree, of course—but we disagree with the need to restate it. Requirements under the Animal Welfare Act are not negated by the Bill; they simply do not need to be repeated by the Bill.
Amendment 115 requires keepers to adhere to the Animal Welfare Act—of course—and to the code of practice for primates, which I made reference to earlier. Primate keepers are already required to do both those things. The code explains what keepers must do to meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. Again, that does not need restating. I would, however, like to take the opportunity to allay some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the transitional period.
Daniel Zeichner
I hear that, and I am grateful for the clarification that it effectively adds up to two years. However, I still do not understand where the Government think these creatures are going to go.
Victoria Prentis
Part of the issue, as we heard in evidence, is that we are not clear on how many primates are in private ownership. That is why we thought very carefully about the new licensing system. As people will initially have to register their primates, we will then know the extent of the problem. We are working extremely closely with rehoming centres and zoo centres to make sure that within that two-year period there will be places for all the primates that need to be rehomed. The system will give local authorities time to determine the scale of ownership, and rehoming centres willing and able to take on new primates will have time to prepare to do this once we know the scale of the problem in each area.
That is why, instead of an outright ban as suggested in previous amendments, we have selected this licensing system as the most humane way to go, and the way that we hope will lead to healthy primates not needing to be euthanised. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
This has been a useful exchange, although it also shows some flaws in the way we do things in this House, in the sense that we are having to divine the Government’s thinking through pulling apart legislation. It would be helpful to have an overview of what is trying to be achieved. I have genuine sympathy, as this is a very difficult problem. However, I remain unconvinced. In the evidence session, I asked a witness—I believe it was the RSPCA, right at the beginning—that if I were to wander around my constituency, would I randomly come across people who keep primates? To my astonishment, the answer was yes, although I will not be breaking into people’s gardens to look.
However, I am sceptical about the likelihood of the kind of people who behave like that coming forward to register in a timely manner to allow the local authority to respond in a rational way. I fear it is far more likely, as is often the case with new legislation, that a few law-abiding, sensible people will come forward, but the vast majority will not. Therefore, we will end up—at the halfway point or at two years—with the exact same problem we had at the beginning. I do not think we will have come any further forward. I do not have a clear solution to this problem, but I am sceptical as to whether the Government have a solution to it either.
We will not push this amendment to a vote, but I do think we have learned something. I suspect that as we continue this process, there will be more discussion, more thought, and maybe some suggestions as to how we can resolve it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 72, in schedule 1, page 34, line 19, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Amendment 73, in schedule 1, page 34, line 23, leave out from “who” to “may” in line 24 and insert,
“meets the application condition in relation to a primate”.
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales (see the explanatory statement to Amendment 3), and provides that an application for registration under the Schedule may be made if the application condition (see Amendment 76) is met.
Amendment 74, in schedule 1, page 34, line 25, after “regulations” insert,
“made by the appropriate national authority”.
This amendment provides that regulations under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1 are to be made by the appropriate national authority.
Amendment 75, in schedule 1, page 34, line 26, after “premises” insert,
“in which the primate is kept”.
This amendment provides that applications under this Schedule are to be made to the local authority in whose area the primate is kept.
Amendment 76, in schedule 1, page 34, line 26, at end insert—
“(1A) “The application condition”, in relation to a primate, means—
(a) in the case of an application to a local authority in England, that the individual kept the primate in premises in England or Wales immediately before the date specified under paragraph 1(1)(a) in regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(b) in the case of an application to a local authority in Wales, that the individual kept the primate in premises in England or Wales immediately before the date specified under paragraph 1(1)(a) in regulations made by the Welsh Ministers.”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment sets out the condition that must be satisfied for an application under paragraph 3(1) of the Schedule to be made.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The schedule introduces the transitional registration scheme that we were just talking about, for those who keep primates before the prohibition in clause 1 comes into force. The schedule will cease to have effect one year after the prohibition of keeping a primate under clause 1 comes into force.
Daniel Zeichner
I do not have much to add, other than that I am not sure the general discussion has fully appreciated the role that this schedule plays in the transitional process. As I have already suggested, I have some worries as to how successful it is likely to be. I suspect the numbers will be low. I hope I am wrong. I am not sure how the Government plan to promote this, or how people who should register will know about it or how they will be prompted. A range of questions comes to mind. I can see what the Government are trying to do with this measure, but I am sceptical about its chances of success. Let us hope it helps us find a way out of this tricky situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 2
Offences relating to primates: fixed penalty notices
Amendments made: 77, in schedule 2, page 38, line 30, at end insert
“in the case of local authorities in England, or the Welsh Consolidated Fund in the case of local authorities in Wales.”
This amendment and Amendment 78, taken together, provide for sums received by local authorities in Wales under Schedule 2 to be paid into the Welsh Consolidated Fund, subject to deduction of investigation costs.
Amendment 78, in schedule 2, page 38, line 31, after “Fund” insert “or Welsh Consolidated Fund”—(Victoria Prentis.)
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 77.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The schedule allows a local authority to issue fixed penalty notices where it is satisfied that the person has committed an offence relating to the keeping, breeding or transferring of primates. Fixed penalty notices will allow local authorities greater flexibility in their enforcement of the offences outlined in part 1, and will alleviate some of the burden on them associated with pursuing prosecutions through the courts, which can take time and money. It also allows a more proportionate response to lower-level offending and will enable us to act quickly to ensure that primates are kept in appropriate conditions.
Daniel Zeichner
Again, there is not a great deal to be said, other than, as with my earlier observation, that we are setting up a complicated system—understandably, if one assumes that the licensing system is likely to work. I wonder how many cases we will actually see processed through this system.
There is one point I do worry about: as I read it, if someone pays the fixed penalty notice within the relevant period of 14 days, it is a bit like a parking ticket, in that there is a 50% reduction, and there will be a fine of only £2,500. Given the costs and the scale at which some who keep primates might be operating, I wonder whether that is a sufficient deterrent. To some extent that touches on another piece of legislation in the Government’s animal welfare action plan, which is the private Member’s Bill on fixed penalty notices, which I believe will soon be going to Committee. In the Second Reading debate on that Bill, I raised the concern that although I understand the benefit to enforcement agencies of having an extra, more flexible tool in the box, there is a potential risk that one could end up diminishing the severity of the penalty for the more serious offences. I feel that that is beginning to creep in here. I do not want a situation in which people for whom £2,500 is not a great deal of money just feel that this fine is like a parking ticket—they do not really bother about it and can carry on doing what they are doing. That is cause for concern, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments.
Victoria Prentis
I will be brief. The fixed penalty notice as a tool in the toolbox is a very good description. I remind the Committee that, of course, if the ultimate offence, which we have just created and which is to keep a primate without a licence, is committed, the fine is unlimited.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 2
Primate licences
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, after “species” insert “at such premises”.
This amendment spells out that a primate licence must specify the premises to which it relates.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 10 to 14 and 18.
Victoria Prentis
The purpose of the amendments is to strengthen the functions of local authorities under the new licensing regime. Amendment 4 will ensure that the premises where the primate is kept are stated on the licence. Amendments 10 and 14 allow local authorities to take into account any previous failure of the applicant to meet licensing standards, and any other conduct of the applicant that is deemed relevant, when deciding whether to grant or renew a licence.
Amendment 12 allows local authorities to decide whether to grant an application to vary the licence of an applicant who wishes to reduce the number of primates specified on their licence. That may not always be appropriate, as primates are social animals and a minimum social grouping size may well be needed to ensure that they thrive.
Amendment 11 makes it clear that licence holders may apply to vary the specified premises on their licence only when the new premises are located in the same local authority area. Amendment 13 provides that where the licence holder moves the primate to new premises, the local authority will be required to arrange an inspection before granting the application. Amendment 18 ensures that any guidance issued to local authorities on the implementation of the primate licensing regime is made publicly available.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 105, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out “six” and insert “two”.
This amendment would reduce the length of a licence from six years to two.
You will be delighted to know, Ms McVey, that this is not a complicated amendment. This is basically the question of how long the licence exists for. We think that six years is too long. I think that evidence was given by some of the witnesses that agreed with us on that. We think that two years might be a more appropriate period. I suspect that, under other amendments, we will come to the issue of who is really suited to do these kinds of checks. My suspicion is that the average local authority, because it is a district local authority, is going to struggle to have this expertise. To some extent, it could be argued that if it were going to struggle every six years, it would struggle even more every two years, but we think that this is a flawed system and that six years is just too long. We would rather the checks be more frequent, although overall, as I have said before, we would rather the provision not be needed at all.
Victoria Prentis
We believe that six years is the right length for a primate licence. The length of the licence and the number of inspections, which I will detail in a minute, is in line with the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. Before a licence is granted in the first place, the primate will be assessed by a veterinary surgeon. The six-year licensing period then involves at least two more inspections by an inspector appointed by the local authority. We anticipate that those inspections will be spaced relatively evenly over the six-year period.
We are also looking very carefully at, and working with expert groups on, what we can put in the regulations about the care of primates. For example, we might look at making an annual vet visit a requirement. I therefore ask that the hon. Gentleman withdraw the amendment.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Is the licensing scheme aimed at encouraging people to no longer keep primates as pets? Perhaps six years gives the impression that this is an okay practice to continue in perpetuity, while two years would perhaps accelerate the process of people no longer wanting to keep primates as pets.
Victoria Prentis
For the reasons we set out in earlier debates, the aim of this legislation is to ensure that primates are kept to very high—at least zoo-level—welfare standards and that those who keep them comply with those conditions. It is for that reason that we put in the six-year period, in line with other zoo and dangerous wild animal licensing regimes. We very much view this provision as part of that package. There will be regular inspections throughout that period, and the main thing is to ensure that the primate is properly kept.
Olivia Blake
I assume that the licensing will provide some financial benefit to local authorities so they are able to undertake this work. Will the pricing of the six-year licence guarantee that they are able to provide the necessary services? Would a two-year licence not provide more income for local authorities so that they can do the work asked of them?
Victoria Prentis
That is a fair question. Local authorities will be able to charge fees, both for any initial licence application and for registration under the transition scheme that we talked about. They will also be able to charge fees in respect of any inspections carried out under the licensing regime. The fees will enable the local authority to recover any costs that it incurs as a result of carrying out these activities. We hope that the ability to charge fees will minimise the burden placed on them in implementing the legislation, although I accept that they will have to do additional work.
We are very much co-developing the guidance on the implementation of these primate measures with local authorities. That work has already started and the group is discussing issues such as the appropriate level for fees to be set at, what sort of help local authorities will need and what training inspectors might need to enable them to comply with the provisions.
Daniel Zeichner
It is interesting listening to the Minister, because there is a fundamental difference of opinion here. Of course, the welfare of the primate is paramount, but I took her to say that we are talking about having high enough standards for primates to be allowed to be kept under a licensing system—that goes back to the opening debate. However, there is a fundamental difference of opinion here: we do not think that primates should be kept—full stop. In zoos, and in some research establishments sadly, we still need them—in zoos, they are for specific conservation and educational purposes. However, I do not see the case for this licensing system. There is a clear divide here.
Six years is far too long. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, it is an encouragement. Essentially, it says, “It’s okay. If you have the money and you can afford to do it, it is okay.” Well, it is not okay, and we do not think that it should be happening, so we will press this amendment to a vote.
Victoria Prentis
As we have heard, the clause specifies the number and type of primate that licence holders are permitted to keep. It will ensure that licence holders keep neither more primates than they are capable of caring for nor species that they do not have the facilities or expertise to keep.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Licensing standards and other requirements
Amendment made: 5, in clause 3, page 2, line 11, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 106, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, leave out “may include” and insert
“must include but are not limited to”.
This amendment would place a responsibility on the Secretary of State to include fundamental welfare requirements in the licencing conditions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 107, in clause 3, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
“(g) their social grouping.”
This amendment would add the social grouping of primates to standards that can be included under licensing conditions.
Amendment 108, in clause 3, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
“(g) microchipping of any primate kept under the licence.”
Amendment 109, in clause 3, page 2, line 22, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require microchipping of licensed primates, and require licence holders to provide specific information to local authorities.
Daniel Zeichner
I am slightly surprised that we needed to table this set of amendments, which concern the limited scope and lack of clarity on what the standards will be. We have discussed before what should be in the Bill and what should be left to regulation. In time-honoured fashion, I suspect that the Opposition want more and the Government want less. We may well find our positions reversed in a few years—who knows? Although I understand the case for flexibility and the need to adapt to changing circumstances, we think that more could be put in the Bill, which would give people more confidence that the welfare concerns that we all share are being addressed properly.
It is disappointing that the standards that the licensing system will be expected to achieve are not being published. As you know, Ms McVey, we do not think that the licence system is the way to go, but if we are to have one it needs to be tough and robust. I thought that there would be more on that in the Bill than there appears to be. Again, those of us who have been on Bill Committees before have discussed the distinction between “may” and “must” on many occasions. It is a familiar debate and, I suspect, one that the Minister will respond to in the traditional fashion. We would like to see the language toughened up so that these things must be there.
The options listed in the Bill are:
“(a) the environment and accommodation that primates need;
(b) their diet;
(c) provision for their behavioural needs;
(d) their handling;
(e) their transportation;
(f) protecting them from pain, suffering, injury and disease”,
all of which, of course, we strongly concur with. However, any licensing standards supposedly as high as those of a zoo will surely need to include standards on all those things and more. The theme that has perhaps come through in our debate this morning is the difficulty of distinguishing between the levels and standards in the various places in which primates might end up residing: zoos, sanctuaries, rescue centres, or private accommodation. There lines between those are fairly hazy.
At the end of this process, one of the questions that anyone looking at the legislation in the round will be asking themselves is whether those criteria have been accurately set out and defined. I am not convinced that they have been. If one were being generous to the Government, which of course I am, one would say that this can be achieved through regulation, but sceptics would then say, “That’s not much of a guarantee.” We are here to try and make sure that it actually happens. As such, our amendment 106 would alter the language in the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State includes in the licensing conditions all the fundamental welfare requirements I listed earlier. However, we do not think that list is exhaustive. Following discussions with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, we think it is essential that provisions covering the social grouping of primates be included in the licensing standards.
I suspect that Members on all sides of the House will agree with what I am about to say: we know that primates, including ourselves, are highly social creatures, and to prevent primates from socialising adequately with other primates causes a great deal of suffering and lasting damage. I am told that isolated primates may mutilate themselves, become severely depressed, pluck their own hair, or show abnormal behaviours, and some even die prematurely. I do not think any of this comes as a surprise to us, because we know how close those creatures are to us, and we know that all those things happen when people are subjected to solitary confinement, which is effectively what we may be risking without specifying these provisions for primates. As such, our amendment 107 is essential to ensuring that any licensing system for primates takes into account their social groupings and, at the very least, prevents any primate from being kept on its own. Other than the fact that the Government refuse to ever accept amendments, I cannot see any logical reason why an amendment like this should not be accepted, but I live in the real world.
Finally, I will briefly discuss amendments 108 and 109 which, taken together, would require all primates kept under licence to be microchipped. We will probably come back to microchipping later in the Bill, but we think it would be sensible to include microchipping in the licensing standards. Microchipping has become an essential part of animal care. It is a safe, effective and permanent way to identify individual primates, and would ensure the traceability of any primates kept under the new licensing scheme. That is quite an interesting point. I think there is a further clause that touches on some of this, which we will come on to in a moment, but clearly we are relying on the keepers to provide the information. Given that not all of them are necessarily to be relied upon, and some are trading for financial gain, it would seem sensible to have a way of identifying the individual creature.
My understanding is that this proposal received broad support in the consultation on the keeping of primates as pets, so I was surprised to find that such a measure was not included in the Bill. I hope we can help the Government by proposing these sensible amendments, which I am sure they will adopt.
Victoria Prentis
The code I referred to earlier, which I would be delighted to share with the hon. Gentleman, already applies. It goes into some detail about the importance of social interaction for primates and the way in which they should be kept. As I said, the regulations will develop the specifics and we are actively working on them with experts in the field. I would be delighted to share with the hon. Gentleman the details of that process as it continues.
We intend to introduce microchipping for licensed primates, but not where that is harmful, which it may be in a few exceptional cases. Microchipping primates is a significant procedure. It can require anaesthetic and carries a degree of risk to more vulnerable primates. There will be cases where exemptions to microchipping are needed—for example, if a primate is elderly or in ill health. As the hon. Gentleman said, primates are closely related to us and I sympathise with that position. Microchipping will be set out in the regulations, however, and we need to work slowly and carefully with the sector to come up with the right set of exemptions.
We also think that licence holders should provide key information to local authorities, including on primate births, deaths or transfers. That can be set out in secondary legislation, after we have worked with relevant experts. As we develop our standards, we are consulting widely. We want to set the bar high and aim for zoo-equivalent standards, and we need to ensure that the standards include species-specific requirements. Some of these are set out in the code, but learning has developed since the code was written, and it is important that we have the most up-to-date advice.
We need to work in a collaborative and expert-led way. I do not want to presuppose exactly what the standards should be now, so we will introduce our licensing standards via regulations made under the affirmative procedure and Parliament will be able to scrutinise their detail. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Olivia Blake
I want to talk a little more about social groupings. We do not need to be experts in the field to know that this is an important standard that should be met under any licensing conditions. It is incredibly important that it is on the face of the Bill and I would be pleased if the Government thought again.
On the issue of microchipping, I accept that there might be some stress for certain animals, but “may” is too weak a word. If we are asked for exemptions, and as long as the exemptions are clear, “must” is entirely acceptable.
Although microchipping can help us trace animals, I am concerned that there is no standard way in which it is done across local authorities. As we know from other types of microchipping, there has been confusion about different systems. Given the nature of primates, without a microchipping system or some other relevant form of identification, I am concerned about how people would know if the primates they are looking at today are the same primates they looked at five years ago,.
Daniel Zeichner
I listened to the Minister carefully and I too would not want to go against expert advice on this matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam just said, we would like to see the issue addressed more strongly in the Bill, rather than in guidance and advice, but I hear what the Minister says.
We will have a longer debate about microchipping in relation to other parts of the Bill. It is complicated, not least because of the way the various databases have grown up, probably in a rather disorganised and difficult way, which makes access to them complicated for vets.
I heard the Minister’s point about the difficulty of microchipping primates. The Whips do not yet have plans to microchip MPs, have they? I am looking at the hon. Member for South Derbyshire. I am sure it could be useful under some circumstances.
Daniel Zeichner
Yes. We will all do exactly as we are told.
I understand the Minister’s arguments, so we will not press this amendment to a vote, but I hope she heard our points. There are challenges involved in dealing with creatures that are so close to us. We want to make sure they are treated properly and respectfully. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 22, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.
This amendment relates to the application of part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to amendment 3.
Amendment 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.
This amendment relates to the application of part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to amendment 3.
Amendment 8, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘appropriate national authority’.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment relates to the application of part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to amendment 3.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause sets out that the Secretary of State will provide licensing standards via regulations for the care and management of primates kept under the licence. They will be developed in close collaboration with experts on primate welfare. The licensing standards will be introduced via regulations made via the affirmative procedure and we will have the chance to scrutinise them.
Daniel Zeichner
To reprise the debate: as ever, the danger with licences that may include things is that they may not. While we have no reason to not trust the Government on that, we would much rather it were stronger. We see no reason it could not have been strengthened in the Bill and although we will not push to a vote, we continue to worry that far too much has been left to regulation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Applications
Amendment made: 9, in clause 4, page 2, line 32, leave out ‘in England’.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to amendment 3.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The Bill provides for the creation of a primate licensing scheme that exempts licence holders from the prohibition on keeping primates in England and Wales. Clause 4 outlines who is eligible to apply for a primate licence and the steps involved in the application process. The clause is necessary for establishing a common set of application principles.
Daniel Zeichner
I have little to add, other than to say, yet again, that we worry about the licensing system. I was quite struck by clause 4(4)(a), in which the application was to state the “name and sex” of the primate. That brings home to us that this is different from many other animal regulations, although we all ascribe names to our pets. This is almost like the registration of a birth or a death and it reflects the different way in which we treat primates compared with other creatures. I find it both moving and slightly chilling, because we are saying that a creature has a name that is recorded that we are allowing, under licence, to be imprisoned or kept as a pet. That does not feel right.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
DETERMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 110, page 3, line 27, leave out “veterinary surgeon” and insert
“competent veterinary surgeon with appropriate specialist expertise in the health and welfare requirements of the species the licence relates to”.
This amendment would require premises inspections for licence applications be conducted by a competent veterinary surgeon with appropriate specialist expertise in the health and welfare requirements of the species the licence relates to.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 111, page 5, line 10, leave out “veterinary surgeon” and insert
“competent veterinary surgeon with appropriate specialist expertise in the health and welfare requirements of the species the licence relates to”.
This amendment would require that premises inspections for licence renewals be conducted by a competent veterinary surgeon with appropriate specialist expertise in the health and welfare requirements of the species the licence relates to.
Amendment 112, in clause 10, page 6, line 20, at end insert—
‘(1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a “suitable person” means a person with appropriate specialist expertise in the health and welfare requirements of the species the license relates to who is—
(a) a competent veterinary surgeon; or
(b) a competent zoo inspector appointed by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would require enforcement inspections to be conducted by a competent veterinary surgeon or a competent zoo inspector appointed by the Secretary of State who has appropriate specialist expertise in the health and welfare requirements of the species the license relates to.
New clause 9—List of competent veterinary surgeons and zoo inspectors—
“The Secretary of State must compile a list containing the names of competent veterinary surgeons and competent zoo inspectors with appropriate specialist expertise in the health and welfare requirements of primates and make this available to local authorities.”
Daniel Zeichner
The amendments are about the level of expertise required of a veterinary surgeon. Our view is that more specialist expertise is required for primates. Looking to expertise in the room, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border may wish to comment.
All veterinary surgeons have skills and qualifications, but given that this will be a relatively unusual occurrence one wonders whether they will be in the right place to do what is needed. I understand that a range of organisations, including Born Free, the RSPCA, Wild Futures, the British Veterinary Association, the Ape Alliance and others have expressed concern that premises inspections for licences, renewals and check-ups should be conducted only by competent veterinary surgeons with suitable knowledge and experience of primates. We have discussed how infrequent those checks could be. We do not know what the geographical spread will be, so it is possible that people will be doing this very rarely. Therefore, the question is: do they fully appreciate what is required?
I hinted earlier that the Government have failed to spell out the ideal conditions. I understand that further work may be done in regulations and so on, but, as we have just been reflecting, these creatures have extremely complicated welfare needs. They are long-living, intelligent —highly intelligent, in some cases—social animals. It is hardly surprising that many animal welfare organisations believe that a high level of expertise should be a prerequisite of assessing whether a keeper will be able to provide the right environment for a primate.
Amendments 110 and 111 address the aspects of the Bill that cover premises inspections for licence applications and renewals, which under the Bill currently can be carried out by a veterinary surgeon. An average veterinary surgeon will have a broad and extensive knowledge of a wide variety of animals, but how rarely will this arise? I genuinely do not know how many primates the average vet sees, but I guess it is a few. I shall happily take an intervention from a vet. How many primates does the average vet see?
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I declare an interest as a veterinary surgeon. I am not competent or experienced when it comes to treating or examining primates, and that is the nub of the point that the hon. Member for Cambridge is making. I am sympathetic to what he is saying.
When veterinary surgeons train, certainly in this country, they have the potential to practise on any species; they are described as being omnipotential. That is very different from being omnicompetent. The hon. Gentleman’s amendments are very sensible, but I respectfully disagree with the detailed wording. Committee members will recall the evidence we took from the president of the British Veterinary Association about the term “specialist”—unfortunately, the amendments contain the word “specialist”. In the veterinary world, that will conflate and confuse the issue. As the president of the BVA said, she is not a specialist as per the definitions, but she is experienced in zoo medicine, having worked in it for many years.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his expertise. When I looked through the amendments last night, I sighed, realising that he was very likely to make exactly the point he has just made.
I hope the Minister has heard the broad gist of what has been said. We do not know the numbers who will come forward through the licensing system, but even if it were the upper limit of 5,000, there are, I am told, 10.8 million cats in the UK. That gives one a sense of how likely it is for any individual vet to be asked to provide an opinion on these cases and it offers a comparison with what they do in their normal daily work.
Amendment 110 is as drafted on the amendment paper, but there may be scope down the line to revisit the issue. It is important that we get this right. We can help local authorities by making sure that the Government sort out a list of people who have the necessary skills. As I have already hinted, I worry that the average district council will consider the issue and wonder how it will cope with the provisions in the Bill. Clearly there are parts of the country where zoos and rescue centres have the necessary experience, but there will be other parts where they do not. If they came up against an application, they would struggle and it would make it far simpler if the Government did what we are suggesting and compiled a list of the names of competent veterinary surgeons and zoo inspectors who have the skills to carry out the work.
Despite the suggestions from the hon. Gentleman, we think the issue is sufficiently important for us to push it to a vote. We know what the outcome will be, but we want to put it on the record that the Government should take another look at the issue. When the Bill is passed, we hope it will have been improved in this regard.
Victoria Prentis
We all agree that those carrying out inspections should be competent to do so. With his depth of knowledge, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border reminded us that vets have established competency standards. It is important that the regulations use the right terminology—competency, experience and expertise—as they are developed.
We have provided flexibility in the Bill about who can undertake inspections. The aim of that was to avoid creating delays to licence processing, which could be bad for primates awaiting inspection. We are looking to support training for vets and inspectors so that they have the right knowledge to carry out inspections. We hope that the training will increase the pool of people local authorities can call upon. I say once again that primates vary enormously: someone with expertise in one type of primate may well not be competent to deal with another.
We will certainly include material on the selection of inspectors as part of our guidance for local authorities—the list that the hon. Member for Cambridge wanted—and we intend to ensure that local authorities are given details of suitably qualified inspectors, including specialist vets and vets who have undergone primate training.
Local authorities already undertake a lot of that work for us in the space of zoo inspection and dangerous wild animal inspection. They can already request information on competent zoo inspectors from the Animal and Plant Health Agency. We do not need to include that in the Bill, but I will look carefully, having heard the debate, at the language that we use in regulation. I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
This has been a helpful discussion—hopefully, we will come to a sensible resolution. I hear what the Minister says about the advice and guidance. My reflection, having been some years ago a district councillor in a rural area that had some areas that needed to be licensed, is that we struggled with expertise.
Much of the discussion in the end is not so much about primates but about licensing, and how we go about it. Having spent a number of years trying to get the taxi licensing system improved, I am beginning to draw on my conversations with the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers; I remember some of the complexities that can be brought up. None of this is simple or easy. We need expert advice, and the right people. If we do not have them, we will not get a very good outcome. We think that amendment 112 is sufficiently important to vote on, but I will withdraw the others.
Dr Hudson
I support the Government on this issue, but we heard evidence last week that the number of veterinarians with the relevant competence and expertise to look at primates is unclear, but in the order of 50. If we had the word “specialist” in the Bill, we could whittle that down to single figures—or it could be 10 or 20 —because that term means that a person has either their royal college boards or their European college, American college, Australasian college or many others, and that then the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has accredited them as a specialist.
The current wording would really complicate things. I strongly urge the Minister and the Government to take on board the Opposition’s comments about competence and experience so that the licensing protocol is not merely a box-ticking exercise by someone who will potentially be very much out of their comfort zone.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 10, in clause 5, page 4, line 1, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) a local authority may take into account—
(a) any previous failure by the applicant to meet the licensing standards, and
(b) any other conduct of the applicant that is relevant.”—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment allows a local authority to take previous breaches of the licensing standards, and other relevant conduct, into account when making determinations under clause 5(2) and (3).
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause outlines the steps that local authorities will take when determining an application for a primate licence. The clause ensures that a licence is granted to those who have demonstrated that they are able to keep primates to the required standards, while ensuring that local authorities have the flexibility to make allowances for those who are very close to those standards but have not yet quite met them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Decisions relating to primates: representations and appeals
Amendments made: 79, in schedule 3, page 39, line 32, leave out “First-tier Tribunal” and insert “appropriate tribunal or court”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 80 and 81, secures that appeals under Schedule 3 in Wales are made to a magistrates’ court.
Amendment 80, in schedule 3, page 39, line 34, at end insert—
“(2) In this paragraph and paragraph 9, ‘appropriate tribunal or court’ means—
(a) in relation to an appeal relating to the decision of a local authority in England, the First-tier Tribunal;
(b) in relation to an appeal relating to the decision of a local authority in Wales, a magistrates’ court.”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 79.
Amendment 81, in schedule 3, page 39, line 35, leave out “First-tier Tribunal” and insert “appropriate tribunal or court”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 79.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The schedule clearly sets out the circumstances in which a person may appeal a local authority’s decision. That includes decisions on applications for a primate licence or registration, rectification notices issued under a primate licence or registration, and the revoking or amending of a licence to keep primates.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 6
Conditions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause places the requirement on licence holders to meet certain conditions in order to fulfil their obligations.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Variation and surrender
Amendments made: 11, in clause 7, page 4, line 26, at end insert—
“to other premises in the area of the same local authority”.
This amendment clarifies that a local authority can only vary the premises to which a licence relates if the new premises are in its area.
Amendment 12, in clause 7, page 4, line 29, leave out—
“reduce the number of primates or”.
This amendment has the effect that a local authority is not required to grant an application to reduce the number of primates to which a licence applies.
Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 4, leave out lines 34 to 37 and insert—
“(a) may request further information from the licence-holder;
(b) in the case of an application under subsection (1)(a) or (b), may arrange for the premises specified in the licence to be inspected by a veterinary surgeon;
(c) in the case of an application under subsection (1)(c), must arrange for the proposed new premises to be so inspected.”—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment requires a local authority, where an application is made to vary the premises to which a licence relates, to inspect the new premises before determining the application.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause provides licence holders with the ability to apply to local authorities to vary their licence to account for changes in their circumstances. It is needed to ensure that the licensing process is dynamic and can respond to changes in the circumstances of both the licence holders and the primate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Renewal
Amendment made: 14, in clause 8, page 5, line 24, at end insert—
“(7A) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6) a local authority may take into account—
(a) any previous failure by the applicant to meet the licensing standards, and
(b) any other conduct of the applicant that is relevant.”—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment allows a local authority to take previous breaches of the licensing standards, and other relevant conduct, into account when making determinations under clause 8(5) and (6).
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Under this clause, a primate licence lasts for six years, as long as the licence holder meets the conditions of their licence.
Daniel Zeichner
We are seeing exactly what I predicted earlier: a rolling process of permanent licensing. The Bill absolutely does not stop primates from being kept as pets, and I regret that. We have had the discussion about six years and two years—we do not need to go back over it—but this shows that the process is a constant and ongoing one, which will allow primates to remain being kept as pets.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Death of licence-holder
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause sets out the steps to be taken in the unfortunate event of the death of a primate licence holder. It is necessary to allow the deceased licence holder’s personal representative—who, obviously, will often be family members—time to make arrangements for the primate in their care. Primates might otherwise be subjected to unnecessary stress from being moved to other premises without sufficient time for preparations to be made.
Daniel Zeichner
The dialogue around this issue is becoming interesting. The clause further shows the potential problem: not only are primates being kept as pets, but they are being kept in perpetuity, rolling forward, when the licence holder dies. I quite understand the necessity of setting up a licensing system, but this is where it leads—it quite clearly leads to these creatures being kept in perpetuity, and we do not think that should be happening.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause gives the local authority the power to arrange for an inspection of the premises specified in the licence as a means of assuring that the licence holder is meeting the requisite standards and any rectification conditions that they have received.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Fees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause gives the local authority the ability to charge fees for the processing of applications and for conducting inspections relating to a primate licence. It will ensure that the administration of the licensing scheme is not a significant cost to the taxpayer. It will also ensure that local authorities have the resources to implement the scheme effectively.
Daniel Zeichner
As I have already reflected on, this has become a discussion around how to license. Once again, as ever, I defer to the legal expertise of the Minister. I am sure that she knows full well from other legislation how that is done, and I imagine that it will be done in the same way here. However, the clause raises slightly difficult questions about the other criteria that the local authority will use to determine what is an appropriate fee—how many, how often, to what standard and by whom. It is a bit of a moveable feast, and I confess that I do not understand how a local authority might arrive at a reasonable judgment and whether the Government will give guidance. I seek some clarification on that point.
Victoria Prentis
Of course. We cannot specify at this point, for the reasons given, what a typical fee for this licence may be. The fees will reflect local authority costs for administration of the licensing regime, and therefore will be dependent on the costs associated with the licensing scheme in the area. However, we will most certainly be providing guidance to local authorities on the range of fees that should be applicable and we would expect all fees to fall within this range, unless there is good reason why not. We would expect fees to be similar across different local authorities, although there will be some variations.
We are working closely with local authorities and we have a working group dealing with this at the moment. The Welsh Government will be providing guidance in relation to Wales, and again we are working closely with the devolved Administrations on this matter.
Daniel Zeichner
I understand the difficulty the Minister has trying to license something of which we have very little knowledge. That goes back to my basic point that this is a slightly flawed process. What we are hearing is that we have no idea how much the fees might be, which is a problem for anyone applying. Do we not have any sense at all of what an appropriate fee might be for this kind of inspection?
Victoria Prentis
The work is going on at the moment, and I would be delighted to keep the hon. Gentleman in the loop as it continues. Licence holders will have the choice as to whether they wish to apply for a licence and continue to keep their primates. It is right that the financial burden should rest with them. Under existing legislation, zoo licence holders and dangerous wild animals licence holders are also expected to pay a fee to their local authorities, so there is some precedent for this.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause makes it an offence for a licence holder under this part to fail to meet the general licence condition attached to their licence. The penalty for this offence is set at a fine of up to £2,500, although, as I said earlier, the penalty for not having a licence is unlimited. I move that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Rectification Notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Clause 13 authorises the local authority to serve a rectification notice on a licence holder if they fail to meet any of the licensing standards. This will provide licence holders the opportunity to take any remedial action to provide better for the welfare and management of their primates before further enforcement action is taken. I move that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Revocation etc. of licence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
This clause sets out the circumstances in which a local authority is obligated, or has the option, to revoke or vary a primate licence unilaterally. These powers should enable local authorities to act to prevent people who have acted in contravention of this Bill, or the Animal Welfare Act 2006 more generally, from keeping primates. This will help ensure primates are protected from any potential future harm. I move that this clause stands part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Directions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
This clause will enable the local authority to monitor the welfare of any unlicensed primates, and ensure their basic welfare needs are met while they remain in the care of their keeper. I move that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Determination of applications
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 113, in clause 16, page 9, line 15, leave out ‘put down’ and insert ‘humanely euthanised’.
This amendment would bring the language in the Bill in line with existing animal welfare legislation.
This is not a complicated change; it is self-explanatory. In my correspondence with animal welfare organisations, they expressed their misgivings about the use of the term “put down” in the Bill. I am told that currently the wording used in the majority of animal welfare legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006, is “humanely destroyed”. However, I have had conversations with the RSPCA, and it suggests the most suitable language would be “humanely euthanised”, as that, I am reliably informed, is the correct veterinary term. This is a fairly technical amendment, and I hope that if colleagues want to ensure the accuracy and suitability of the technical language in the Bill, the amendment might be fairly uncontroversial. I have never had a successful amendment in Committee, so I am hoping this may finally be it.
Victoria Prentis
I am so sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. It is already the case that when an animal is euthanised—this is an awful subject to be discussing—it must be done humanely. Under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is already an offence to cause an animal unnecessary suffering, and that includes the method of the animal’s death. Therefore, it is not necessary to specify that primates must be euthanised humanely, though, of course, all of us here feel they should. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Dr Hudson
Again, I am sympathetic to the hon. Member for Cambridge and understand his intention. We have to be sensitive about the language when euthanasing animals. In different contexts, we use different terms. In small animal practice, “put down” and “put to sleep” are often used. In the equine profession, where I have spent many years, we will not use “put down”, but will often use “euthanased”. I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s comments that in some of the legislation “humanely destroyed” has been used, which is often used in clinical and scientific literature.
To the Government, I say that in considering changing the terminology, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and would not prefer “euthanised”. If we look at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ website and the section on euthanasia, we often use the term “euthanased”, in that a vet euthanases an animal. There is that matter of semantics. In America, they talk about “euthanatizing” and “euthanizing”. I cannot support “humanely euthanised” for some of the reasons I have just given and I suggest that “humanely euthanased” would be a suitable substitution. I wish the Government would have a look at this to get to more clinical and scientific language.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His expertise is extremely helpful to the Committee and shows how complicated this is. Clause 16(2)(c) is just too aggressive in this context. While I accept the Minister’s explanation of the legal situation, I cannot see why that cannot be put in a different way, given the kind of creatures we are dealing with. I suspect the Minister agrees, but she has to do what she has to do. We are not going to push this to a vote to embarrass people—there is no point—but if there is an opportunity, perhaps it could be amended at some further point in the process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause will help to ensure compliance with the new licensing system, and provide local authorities with a better ability to enforce higher standards of animal welfare. I urge that it stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Selling primates to unlicensed persons
Amendment made: 15, in clause 17, page 10, line 6, leave out “in England”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause will prohibit anyone from selling, gifting or transferring a primate to a person who does not hold a relevant licence, with the knowledge or with reasonable grounds to suspect that that person does not hold such a licence. This provision will cover both private traders and third-party sellers and prevent them from selling primates to individuals who cannot care for their needs adequately. I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Breeding primates
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause sets out that a person who does not hold a relevant licence commits an offence if they take steps to breed a primate under their care with another primate, or where they keep two or more primates together in conditions in which they are able to breed. It should prevent unscrupulous breeders from continuing to fuel a market for pet primates kept in low-welfare conditions. I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
I need say no more than that we totally agree. This is a very strong and important provision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Powers of entry
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause, together with schedule 4, gives power of entry to a person authorised by the local authority; it is to be used in relation to one of the offences that we have already discussed. The power of entry will enable local authorities to investigate whether an offence is being, or has been, committed at the premises, and should allow them to enforce for the offences and penalise those responsible. This will in turn ensure that primates are not being kept, bred or sold in contravention of the Bill. I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Powers of entry relating to primates
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The schedule provides local authorities with a power to support investigation and enforcement in respect of offences in the Bill relating to the keeping, breeding and sale or transfer of primates. The powers in the schedule are necessary to ensure that the offences introduced in the Bill can be effectively enforced against. The powers will allow local authorities to investigate those who keep, breed and sell primates illegally, which in turn should help to ensure the high welfare of all primates kept in England and Wales. I urge the Committee to agree to the schedule.
Daniel Zeichner
Once again, this is an important additional set of powers, which we think will be helpful. I suspect that this is also an exercise in updating the powers available in order to take into account changing technologies and circumstances, and we strongly support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 4 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 20
Guidance
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 20, page 11, line 3, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide guidance to local authorities.
This is the familiar “may” or “must” argument, and I suspect that we will go over old ground yet again with it, but it does allow me to speculate on what happens if the Secretary of State is tardy in providing guidance to local authorities. This takes us back to the equally long-standing issue of support for local authorities, or lack thereof. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill and in the evidence and submissions that we have had from various organisations—we have talked about this at some length this morning already—real concern has been expressed about the capacity of local authorities to enact the system that we are talking about. We all look forward to a time when we can talk about local authorities without adding such adjectives as “underfunded”, “cut” and “on the brink of collapse”. We all know the circumstances in which local authorities find themselves. What strikes me is that the Government continue to load extra obligations on to local authorities without necessarily giving them the help that they need to take on yet more responsibilities.
I have already summed up the Kafkaesque picture of the monkey dumped in the reception of the guildhall in Cambridge. Quite what the monkey or the council officer is supposed to do in those circumstances I am not sure, and it may superficially seem quite amusing, but my partner used to work for a local authority, and quite often they are the last resort, particularly with animals and where people have mental health issues and so on. It is the poor old social worker who ends up at 6 o’clock on a Friday evening trying to find a home for the primate who has been dumped in the lobby.
We need clear guidance. In the evidence session, I asked Dr Girling, chair of the Zoos Expert Committee of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what happens to animals when zoos or others fail to meet licensing standards. The answer was:
“They become the responsibility of the local authority in the first instance”.––[Official Report, Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Public Bill Committee, 9 November 2021; c. 28, Q40.]
Well, good luck to the local authority. The guidance ought to be there. It should not be a “may”; it has to be a “must”. I very much hope that that will be done in a timely manner. Were we to transfer this provision to “must” rather than “may” we would be insisting upon it.
Victoria Prentis
As I have said several times, we certainly intend to develop guidance on the implementation of these primate measures, and in doing so we will continue to engage closely with local authorities, vets and specialist primate keepers. Local authorities do much good work, included in which is their work with dangerous wild animals and other licensing. I have already referenced how they will be able to charge fees to enable them to carry out that work.
I very much hope that the Kafkaesque situation that the hon. Gentleman envisages never comes to pass, and that we are able, because we have brought into play a sensible and proportionate licensing system, to have transitional arrangements that mean that a suitable space in a zoo or rehoming centre where appropriate can be found for primates that need to be rehomed. Government amendment 18 will ensure that any guidance developed for local authorities will be published so that it is fully transparent and available to all. In those circumstances, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Heather Wheeler.)
Judicial Review and Courts Bill (Eighth sitting)
Tuesday 16th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 View all Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 November 2021 - (16 Nov 2021)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. I remind Members that they are expected to wear a face covering except when speaking or if they are exempt, in line with the recommendations of the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home.
Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes @parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea, coffee and other beverages are not allowed during sittings.
Clause 18
Rules for online procedure in courts and tribunals
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 18, page 35, line 9, after “that” insert—
“(a) a person may choose to participate in a hearing by non-electronic means, and
(b) “
This amendment would allow a person to choose to participate in a hearing by non-electronic means.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 90, in clause 18, page 35, line 11, at end insert—
“(7A) Online Procedure Rules must require a person to participate in a hearing by non-electronic means if a physical or mental health assessment of that person confirms that online proceedings will impede their ability to understand or effectively participate in proceedings.”
This amendment would ensure if someone had a physical or mental condition that would prevent them from understanding or effectively participating in online proceedings then the Online Procedure Rules must allow them to participate by non-electronic means.
Alex Cunningham
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark.
As I mentioned in my previous speech, clause 18 provides for the creation of online procedure rules. The online procedure rules must require that proceedings of a kind specified in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, per clause 19(1), are to be initiated by electronic means. Paragraphs (l)(b) and 1(c) of clause 18 allow for the online procedure rules to either authorise or require that specified proceedings are conducted, progressed and disposed of by electronic means, and that parties to the proceedings participate by electronic means.
The Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill provided participants with a choice to initiate, conduct, progress or participate in proceedings by non-electronic means. That choice is retained for those without legal representation in relation to the initiation, conduct, progression or participation other than by a hearing. However, a person is currently unable to choose to participate in hearings by electronic means, and may do so only at the direction of the court or tribunal.
As JUSTICE explain:
“A myriad of issues, including health conditions and disabilities, may make it difficult for individuals to follow or engage with a virtual hearing and those same issues may make it difficult for them to explain to the court or tribunal why they would prefer to attend in person.”
Amendment 59 would allow a person to choose to participate in a hearing by non-electronic means if that is appropriate for them. Amendment 90 would ensure that if someone had a physical or mental condition that would prevent them from understanding or effectively participating in online proceedings, the online procedure rules must allow them to participate by non-electronic means.
Amendments 59 and 90 share the same aim, and together their impact would be to ensure that court users who may have vulnerabilities or particular conditions are able to access the type of hearing most appropriate for them, which research suggests may often be in-person hearings. I am sure that the Minister agrees with me that as we progress with changes to court processes, we must not negatively affect access to justice for any group of court users with particular needs. I would welcome his thoughts on how we can ensure that does not happen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
It is good to have you back in the Chair, Sir Mark. I hope that we will make diligent progress this afternoon.
As the hon. Member for Stockton North said, both amendments would provide options for a person to participate in a hearing via non-electronic means. Amendment 59 would give those participating the option, while amendment 90 would require someone who had a physical or mental condition preventing them from understanding or effectively participating in online proceedings to participate in a hearing via non-electronic means.
The online procedure rule committee will make simple and consistent rules that provide simple processes that can be followed by the average court user. We have seen an increase in online proceedings in response to the pandemic—I will say more on that when speaking to clause stand part. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is moving towards digital services being the default, but we absolutely understand that not everyone will choose to participate in a hearing by electronic means.
I will emphasise specific clauses. In many ways, it is a disappointment that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings is not here, because he would have been greatly reassured by the clauses. He has obviously struggled to get here for an in-person sitting—perhaps we could have held it online, but unfortunately that option is not available at the minute, which is a shame for my right hon. Friend. I have no doubt that he has a good reason for being absent.
Clause 18(6) states:
“Where Online Procedure Rules require a person—
(a) to initiate, conduct or progress proceedings by electronic means, or
(b) to participate in proceedings, other than a hearing, by electronic means,
Online Procedure Rules must also provide that, if the person is not legally represented, the person may instead choose to do so by non-electronic means.”
The key thing is that the rules reply entirely to civil cases—civil, family and tribunals. Those are the jurisdictions to which those particular rules apply. It is not obvious how there would be a situation where someone who had legal representation would not be able to participate online given that practitioners should, for obvious reasons, be able to participate online.
Furthermore, subsection (7) states:
“Where Online Procedure Rules require a person to participate in a hearing by electronic means, Online Procedure Rules must also provide that a court or tribunal may, on an application or of its own initiative, order or otherwise direct that person, or any other person, to participate by non-electronic means.”
Well—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend has duly arrived, and I say to him that one of the downsides of physical sittings and in-person hearings is that one is subject to the whims of chronological events, to put it bluntly, and unfortunately he has missed a great bit of the Bill, which I read out not just for him but primarily because it is relevant to the amendments from the hon. Member for Stockton North, the Opposition spokesperson. The Bill shows that where one is represented, one would be able to request a physical or in-person hearing.
There could be a number of reasons why someone would chose to participate in a hearing by a means other than electronic. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service provides a support service over the phone as well as more intensive face-to-face support for those who might require it, such as vulnerable users who might not otherwise be able to participate in proceedings effectively or those who are digitally excluded. HMCTS has also awarded a national contract to deliver positive and practical solutions to support users and break down the barrier of digital exclusion across civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions. Through this contract, support will be available in person and remotely through a network of delivery partners who are experienced in supporting users of justice services. As per the specification, the services will be delivered across different channels to ensure that all those who require them can access them. Those channels would include local-centre support in more than 300 physical sites, over-the-phone support, remote video appointments with those who have access but need support in navigating the service, and in-home face-to-face support with necessary equipment. HMCTS has considered forms of support that can be provided to the user throughout their online proceedings.
I recently visited Isleworth Crown court where the citizens advice bureau was actively involved in providing services to witnesses. It is conceivable that the physical roll-out of these support services could be provided on a sub-contracted basis by a range of organisations. The point is that that is precedented and it works to provide effective support on the ground to vulnerable users.
Most importantly, as I have said, the measures in the Bill also ensure that paper form will remain available for citizens participating in proceedings, so an offline option will always be available for those who need it, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am delighted to have come hotfoot from a discussion with one of the people who gave evidence to the Committee, Professor Ekins, who shares my view that the Bill should be widened to deal with matters of parliamentary sovereignty and other issues. We were debating how the new clauses that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends might be recast to ensure that they are in scope. On the point that my hon. Friend the Minister raises, the key is that the move to online should not be obligatory. Sir Mark, I was making the argument earlier, as were one or two others on the Committee, that vulnerable people, in particular, might struggle with a purely online system and that they needed some protection from the effects of a system that could become exclusively online. Is the Minister giving the reassurance, which would certainly satisfy me, that this will not be obligatory and that there will be an option for people who wish to do so to appear before a court in the traditional way and to make representations accordingly?
James Cartlidge
I am glad that the reason for my right hon. Friend’s delay was that he is so proactive he was working to amend earlier parts of the Bill, which we will presumably come to after all the other clauses. To allay his concerns and for his benefit, I will repeat the quote because I think it is important. Clause 18(6) states:
“Where Online Procedure Rules require a person—
(a) to initiate, conduct or progress proceedings by electronic means, or
(b) to participate in proceedings, other than a hearing, by electronic means,
Online Procedure Rules must also provide that, if the person is not legally represented, the person may instead choose to do so by non-electronic means.”
To be clear, if a person is legally represented, there is no reason that a legal firm would not be able to participate electronically, and that is why the clause says
“if the person is not legally represented”.
I remind the Committee that those rules apply entirely to civil and family tribunals, not to criminal proceedings. That is a different part of the Bill. I hope that has reassured my right hon. Friend that there will always be choice.
As I have already stated in reference to previous amendments, there is a range of support in place. We have just set up a national contract which will deliver not only telephone and web-based support, but physical, in-person support, of the kind that we see in our courts and other physical locations around the country. There is a wide range of measures.
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful to the Minister, both for giving way and for that assurance. He is right that our endeavour in the Bill is to increase efficiency, free up court time and make the system run more smoothly. I was discussing that with hon. Members earlier, and I share that view. My fear was that the most vulnerable of our countrymen might be disadvantaged, but my hon. Friend has reassured me that that will not be the case because the measures will not be obligatory. “There will always be choice” were his words. Let those words ring out in the Committee and assuage the fears that I articulated on behalf of the most needy.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As a Conservative, he is, of course, a champion of choice at the forefront of public policy—
James Cartlidge
Of course—and the needy. They are both important. Given the safeguards in place and the fact that an offline option is already available, I do not think the amendments are necessary. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Stockton North to withdraw them.
Alex Cunningham
The theory is all well and good. I hope that, in practice, the service is delivered to the standard the Minister believes is possible. He has had our demands for quality support and flexibility for vulnerable people ringing in his ears for several days now. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—who I thought had acquired a red box earlier this afternoon, but it is not quite the right colour—has joined the fray in championing vulnerable people, and I welcome the reassurances he has received from the Minister.
I want to expand slightly and talk a bit about the citizens advice bureaux and the tremendous support they give not only in courts across the country, but to people in my constituency in Stockton. I am interested to know how the services will be designed for the future. The Minister has talked about 300 hubs; he has talked about the CAB and others, as well. How will those services be delivered to ensure that people are properly covered with the necessary support? The comments from the Minister are clear and the theory is clear. We just want to see it in practice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
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.
James Cartlidge
I intended to use part of the stand part debate to address some of the concerns from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings about the impact on those who are less acquainted with the digital sphere. To be fair, that also addresses some of the points from the hon. Member for Stockton North.
Alex Cunningham
There is no doubt that electronic systems have already made a great difference within our Courts and Tribunals Service and I am sure that they will continue to do so in the future. However, as the Minister well knows, it is a case of ensuring that those at the margins—the vulnerable and the excluded—do not lose out in terms of justice as we go forward. Given the crisis in our courts, there is no doubt that we desperately need solutions, and the electronic solutions are part of that process, but again we want to ensure that the support within the system for everybody is correct and that justice is done.
The Minister has talked about various organisations that will be engaged in the process, but we look forward to seeing the system operating—perhaps he and I could go together when it is—to listen to people about its operation and make sure that what we have delivered in this new legislation is practical and that the most vulnerable people are still being looked after.
James Cartlidge
When we meet to discuss the single justice procedure—a meeting that I was more than happy to agree to—we can talk about how we can look at things. There will obviously be ongoing reviews. It is important that we get this issue right—by ensuring that it has been through a tender, for example.
Sir John Hayes
We have teased out important things from this debate. Would the choice that my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned earlier apply to witnesses, too? I am thinking of a blind person who has heard something or a deaf person who has seen something that might provide vital evidence, both of whom would struggle with the conventional online model. Will provision will be made for them to exercise, as witnesses, the sort of choice that he described earlier?
James Cartlidge
I can absolutely confirm that to my right hon. Friend. At the moment, we are talking about civil cases; he is absolutely right that those people could be witnesses in those, of course.
I stress that the matter would be at the discretion of the courts, without a shadow of a doubt, but I think there will be far more cases of vulnerable witnesses where technology assists the process. The obvious example is section 28 proceedings, in which evidence can be recorded in advance of the actual in-person hearing; they have become a very important part of the justice system. The Secretary of State has set out his desire for them to be rolled out more broadly. In a way, my right hon. Friend makes the point for me: technology in such cases can be of great assistance, and we are applying it to intimidated witnesses as well.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister mentioned section 28 proceedings and the recording of evidence. During consideration of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Opposition tabled a number of amendments in that particular area, to expand the use of the process. Given that the new Minister is a fan, will he look at the issue with his colleagues in the Lords to see whether there are ways in which we can expand the service to the benefit of the sorts of people who the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings just spoke about?
James Cartlidge
There are two points to make on that. First, the specific point about the Bill’s progress in the Lords is a matter for Lord Wolfson, who is an excellent Minister; I effectively shadow him on the areas for which he is responsible. However, the hon. Gentleman should be assured of the Lord Chancellor’s commitment to section 28 proceedings following his comments in media interviews. There is widespread support for them among the relevant victims’ groups and charities.
Of course, there are practical issues that we need to consider, but, as I have said, there is widespread agreement about this issue. Using such technology can be very important in enabling and assisting vulnerable witnesses.
Alex Cunningham
I am in danger of drifting back to the other Bill that I mentioned, but we were also talking about how potential witnesses, in some circumstances, would be interviewed. For example, at the moment they may be interviewed by a non-legal person; in other words, there might not be a legal representative, either for the prosecution or the defence, carrying out the interview in those circumstances. Would the Minister be prepared to look at that?
James Cartlidge
With respect, I think that does stray too far into the specifics of the measure. It was a nice try, but I was setting out the principle that technology has assisted access to justice in the context of those who are vulnerable—the sorts of people who we would have in mind in discussing precisely these provisions.
I agree about the importance of in-person proceedings where it matters most. The most obvious example for all of us is that, like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings and others on this side of the Committee, I passionately wanted Parliament to return to its normal ways of working at the earliest safe moment, because we could not intervene on each other when we were on a TV screen.
It is not democracy when arguments are not challenged. It gives me a great thrill to take an intervention from the Opposition side that I have to try to answer. That is how we thrash out and debate an argument. It is sub-optimal to have it online and optimal to have it in person, but there will be many aspects of life, and many aspects of legal proceedings, that can be perfectly competently and satisfactorily conducted online.
By maximising those aspects, we maximise the in-person resource for the things that really matter. On the criminal side, that is clearly criminal trials, particularly jury trials in the Crown court. On the civil side, that could be complex cases, such as family cases, that need to be heard in person. By maximising the use of technology, we liberate more of that resource, so it is important to support the measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 19
“Specified kinds” of proceedings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
Clause 19 provides for online procedure rules to be made in relation to civil, family or tribunal proceedings specified by the Lord Chancellor. It enables the Lord Chancellor to specify in regulations such proceedings by reference to, among other matters, the legal or factual basis of the proceedings, the value of the matter in issue, and the court or tribunal in which the proceedings would be brought.
The regulations, which will require the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice and, where tribunal proceedings are involved, the Senior President of Tribunals, and which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, will accordingly govern the scope of application for any online procedure rules. They may provide safeguards, for instance, by setting out circumstances in which a party to proceedings may choose whether to use the online procedure or circumstances where proceedings of a specified kind may not be governed by online procedure rules.
We envision that there is likely to continue to be a need for a parallel paper-based procedure for those who are digitally excluded. That would act as a safeguard for the majority of claims that remain within the scope of the online procedure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Provision supplementing section 18
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
Clause 20 allows for provision to be made about the circumstances in which a party to proceedings may have a choice whether to use the online procedure or the appropriate alternative civil or family court or tribunal procedure to which the standard rules apply. Provision may also be made for excluded cases to which online procedure rules are not to apply and for circumstances in which proceedings may cease to be subject to online procedure rules or, conversely, may become subject to them even though they were not initially. That will enable flexibility, so that the most appropriate procedure can apply to any given proceedings or part of proceedings thereof.
Regulations under the clause will require the affirmative resolution procedure. Before making any regulations under the clause, the Lord Chancellor must secure the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice or, if the regulations concern tribunal proceedings, the Senior President of Tribunals.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
The Online Procedure Rule Committee
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 21, page 37, line 28, leave out “(3)” and “(4)” and insert “(3), (4) and (4A)”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 29.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 60, in clause 21, page 37, line 38, at end insert—
“(c) one person who is an ‘authorised court and tribunal staff member’ as defined by the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018.”
This amendment would require the Lord Chief Justice to appoint an authorised court and tribunal staff member to the Online Procedure Rules Committee.
Amendment 61, in clause 21, page 38, line 5, leave out “one person who has” and insert “two people who have”.
This amendment will expand the membership of the OPRC to include two IT experts.
Amendment 29, in clause 21, page 38, line 6, at end insert—
“(4A) The Lord President of the Court of Session is to appoint one person with experience in and knowledge of the Scottish legal system.”
This amendment would require the Online Procedure Committee to include a person with experience in and knowledge of the Scottish legal system, appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session.
Amendment 62, in clause 21, page 38, line 6, at end insert—
“and;
(d) one person who has experience representing the views of people who are digitally excluded.”
This amendment will expand the membership of the OPRC to include someone with experience representing the views of people who are digitally excluded.
Amendment 91, in clause 21, page 38, line 6, at end insert—
“(d) one person who has experience in, and knowledge of, accessible service design”.
This amendment would increase the membership of the Online Procedure Rule Committee by requiring the Lord Chancellor to appoint a person with expertise in accessible service design.
Amendment 64, in clause 21, page 38, line 25, at end insert—
“(9A) In making appointments under subsections (3) and (4) above, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice must have due regard to the ethnic and gender balance of the Online Procedure Rules Committee.”
This amendment would require the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to have due regard to the ethnic and gender balance of the Online Procedure Rules Committee when making their appointments.
Alex Cunningham
I move the amendment on behalf of the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, who is unable to be here this afternoon.
Clause 21 sets out the membership of the online procedure rule committee and makes other provisions—for the Lord Chancellor to reimburse expenses of members appointed to it, for example. Under the clause as it is currently drafted, the online procedure rule committee would have just six members. Three of them would be judicial appointments made by the Lord Chief Justice and would include the chair of the committee. The other three appointments would be made by the Lord Chancellor and drawn from elsewhere in the legal profession, the lay advice sector and those with professional experience of online portals.
I understand that the number of committee members and the qualifications and experience that they must have can be modified. As the Bill is currently drafted, that would be done by regulations under the negative procedure, although regulations cannot be made until the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals has been secured, and only after consulting other specified members of the senior judiciary. Even though the Bill contains a provision to change the rules governing the committee’s membership, I think the initial set-up as provided for by clause 21 is very unusual for its small size and, as a consequence, the limited amount of experience that would be covered by the committee.
I recall the evidence of Richard Leiper from two weeks ago. I am going to quote him at length because he captures in a few sentences what is wrong with the Government’s proposals. He said:
“The current composition of the committee is a total of 6 people. That is in contrast to the civil procedure rule committee, which has 18 members. The family procedure rule committee has 18 members. To me, given the potential breadth of the rule that could be set by this committee, having one senior judge, a couple of other judges, one practitioner, one layperson and one computer person is simply not enough. That is partly because the scope for the procedures would be trespassing on areas which it is likely that no member of the committee would have any knowledge of.
For example, I have no knowledge at all about family court proceedings—how they begin, how they proceed, or what the interests of the various parties would be. Yet, if there is just one practitioner, who could be a barrister, a solicitor or a legal executive—each of whom have different perspectives on how the system operates, how it impacts on clients, other parties and so forth—there will not be the wealth of knowledge, even with consultation with people who do know, to enable effective online rules. The composition of the committee is my single greatest concern.”––[Official Report, Judicial Review and Courts Public Bill Committee, 2 November 2021; c. 37, Q41.]
That is clear and wise counsel, I would say. The concern that Mr Leiper expressed is shared by many in the sector and, indeed, by the Opposition. I thank the Public Law Project, JUSTICE and the Legal Education Foundation for their expertise and constructive assistance in scrutinising this clause. This set of amendments looks at the membership of the online procedure rule committee, mostly with a view to expanding it to include additional professionals with relevant experience. I would be interested to hear from the Minister in relation to each amendment whether it represents the kind of regulation change that he anticipates may be brought in via the negative procedure.
Amendment 60 would require the Lord Chief Justice to appoint an authorised courts and tribunals staff member to the online procedure rule committee. JUSTICE has recommended that the OPRC should feature an authorised courts and tribunals staff member, as defined in the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018. The effect of that 2018 legislation is to allow individual rule committees to delegate functions that were traditionally judicial in nature to non-judicial court staff.
For example, in the context of the online court, JUSTICE understands from HMCTS that the pilot of legal advisers within that service will allow them to make various procedural determinations, including case progression directions, for defending claims. Given the extent to which procedural functions in online courts are to be delegated to authorised courts and tribunals staff and the concomitant need for those staff to understand and apply relevant procedural rules, would it not be prudent to include their voice in the drafting of the relevant rules? The Opposition agree that that would be a very sensible addition to the OPRC, and I hope the Minister will agree.
Amendment 61 would further expand the membership of the OPRC to include two IT experts, where now it only includes one. As it stands, the Bill places significant responsibility on a lone information technology expert. As the Public Law Project puts it,
“To imply that there is one information technology expert who can be the source of truth for digital procedure is incorrect as there are lively debates in that sphere.”
Limiting the committee to only one information technology expert presents a risk that a particular view of the capability and role of information technology in the justice system will take precedence. We think that expanding the Committee to include a wider range of expertise in information technology and internet portals would be a valuable contribution to ensuring that the online procedure rules are suitably futureproofed.
Amendment 62 would again expand the membership of the OPRC—this time, to include someone with experience representing the views of people who are digitally excluded. Currently, the online procedure rule committee does not include any members who would be able to represent the views of digitally excluded people or have expertise in the specific challenges that digitally excluded people might encounter if they needed to be a party to proceedings under the online procedure.
I spoke about this issue in our debate on clause 18, but I will stress the point again. In making the online procedure rules, it is important that we do not negatively impact access to justice for those with vulnerabilities or conditions, or who are digitally excluded for any reason. I think this would be a most important voice on the committee and I hope that the Minister will agree with me that it would add great value to its work.
Amendment 91 would increase the membership of the online procedure rule committee by requiring the Lord Chancellor to appoint a person with expertise in accessible service design. Again, we believe this would be an extremely valuable perspective to include on the committee.
I know the Minister wants these reforms to have a positive impact on justice; including a professional with experience in accessible service design would ensure that the online procedures can be used by the widest range of persons possible, which is surely an aim that the Government share with us. As I said earlier, I am keen to hear from the Minister on whether his Department has considered the addition of any such members to the Committee. If not, is it something he foresees being introduced under the negative procedure as outlined in the Bill? If the latter is true, I suggest that an easier route would be to include them now in the primary legislation.
Amendment 64 is slightly different. It would require the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to have due regard to the ethnic and gender balance of the online procedure rule committee when making their appointments. I understand that in Committee and on Report in the Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill, Lord Beecham tabled an amendment, introducing a requirement that
“The Lord Chancellor must ensure that gender balance is reflected on the Online Procedure Rule Committee.”
Amendment 64 is tabled in that spirit, but goes further, adding that the racial diversity of the committee must also be considered.
JUSTICE’s working party report, “Increasing Judicial Diversity”, found that reducing homogeneity in the legal system is important for both legitimacy and quality of decision making. Ensuring gender balance in the creation of new rules committees would serve as a positive step towards that aspiration. However, the Opposition agree that there is no reason why that should be prioritised any more than racial diversity, especially given the dreadful disparities in the legal profession.
A recent report by the race working group of the Bar Council found that barristers from ethnic minority backgrounds, particularly black and Asian women, face systemic obstacles to building and progressing a sustainable and financially rewarding career at the Bar. Indeed, they found that a black female junior barrister with the same level of experience as a white male junior bills £18,700 a year less on average, and an Asian woman £16,400 less. That is clear evidence that addressing racial diversity within the legal profession must be an urgent priority for the Government. The amendment provides one opportunity to address some of these disparities, and I hope the Minister will take it.
James Cartlidge
The amendments in the group all relate to the membership of the new online procedure rule committee. The Bill provides for a committee of six members, of whom three are judicial members appointed by the Lord Chief Justice and three are non-judicial members appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The range of members will ensure that the new committee will have expertise in the law and the provision of lay advice and information technology. That will equip it to produce straightforward, easily understood court rules, which will support the online procedure.
When the committee comes to develop rules for courts and tribunals, it will be able to consult or seek advice from those with relevant qualifications, and create working groups including persons with relevant experience and expertise, such as in service design or representing those who are digitally excluded. That is in line with how existing rule-making committees work.
The committee is specifically designed to be small and agile in its decision making. Adding additional members at the outset will detract from that. Any need for additional expertise to inform the committee’s decision-making process that may become apparent through experience can be addressed through the power in clause 23, which enables the Lord Chancellor to amend clause 21 to change the required membership of the committee. I suggest that a more flexible approach would be preferable to adding the additional members proposed in amendments 60 to 62 and 91.
Amendments 29 and 28 would require the online procedure committee to include a person of experience and with knowledge of the Scottish legal system appointed by the Lord President of the court of session. The OPRC will be responsible for making rules across civil and family courts in England, Wales and the specified tribunals. The vast majority of the committee’s work, certainly at the outset, is likely to concern procedure for online court proceedings in England and Wales for which a dedicated member of the committee specifically with expertise in Scottish law would, with respect, not be so well equipped to contribute.
When the committee comes to develop rules for tribunals, which would currently include Scottish employment tribunals, it will be able to consult or seek advice from those with relevant qualifications, and to create working groups including persons with relevant experience and expertise. This is in line with how existing rule-making committees work. The need for a distinct Scottish contribution in the decision-making committee through membership can be addressed through the power in clause 23, which enables the Lord Chancellor to amend clause 21 to change the required membership of the committee. That is a better solution than requiring a Scottish member at the outset, since work is continuing towards the devolution of tribunals for Scotland.
Amendment 64 would require the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to have due regard to the ethnic and gender balance of the online procedure rule committee when making their appointments. We can all agree that, as the refreshed public appointments diversity action plan states, drawing public appointees from all aspects of the society that they serve
“will improve the quality of our public services overall.”
I do not, however, consider it necessary to include the specific duty embodied in this amendment in the appointment process for this rule committee alone. Compared with the other committees that, like the online procedure rule committee, are covered by the action plan and the governance code for public appointments under the supervision of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the OPRC is designed to be small and agile to address rules that can be updated quickly, keeping step with technology changes to meet the expectations of 21st century court users.
The OPRC requires a range of expertise to complement new technology and online working. When making appointments to the OPRC, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice will follow the standard process in line with the civil procedure rule, family procedure rule and tribunal procedure rule committees.
I hope I have reassured the hon. Gentleman about the proposed membership of the committee, and that the Bill has built in significant flexibility should its expertise not be sufficient. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for addressing the Scottish amendments. I attached some notes on that to the end of the wrong speech, but I was going to speak briefly to it because our Scottish colleagues—I am Scottish myself, of course—from the SNP made the point that there was no real representation of the Scottish legal profession. The Minister has, however, already addressed that.
I am disappointed that the Minister does not recognise how such a small committee may not have the length and depth of expertise that is required to carry out the jobs that he requires of it. To have one IT expert and just one appointed judge strikes me as totally inadequate in the circumstances. While we will not press the amendment to a vote, the Minister needs to take that away and think again. I have not come across anybody within the sector who does not think that this committee is potentially weak, and will not be able to do the job that it is required to do. We hope that the Minister will take this issue away and look at it again in the spirit that we intend.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 21, page 38, line 14, at end insert—
“(6A) Before appointing a person under subsection 3(c) the Lord Chief Justice must—
(a) consult the Lord Chancellor, and
(b) obtain the agreement of the Senior President of Tribunals.”
This amendment makes the appointment of the authorised court and tribunal staff member to the Online Procedure Rules Committee subject to consultation with the Lord Chancellor and agreement of the Senior President of Tribunals, mirroring the current requirements in relation to judicial appointments to the Committee.
I will be briefer in dealing with this amendment than I have been on anything else. This straightforward amendment relates to amendment 60, and would make
“the appointment of the authorised court and tribunal staff member to the Online Procedure Rules Committee subject to consultation with the Lord Chancellor and agreement of the Senior President of Tribunals, mirroring the current requirements in relation to judicial appointments to the Committee.”
As I said in my previous speech, the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018 allows individual rule committees to delegate functions that were traditionally judicial in nature to non-judicial court staff. Therefore, we think it would be appropriate to appoint this member in line with the process for the members appointed under subsection 3(b) of clause 21.
James Cartlidge
This amendment would make
“the appointment of the authorised court and tribunal staff member to the Online Procedure Rules Committee subject to consultation with the Lord Chancellor and agreement of the Senior President of Tribunals, mirroring the current requirements in relation to judicial appointments to the Committee.”
As I said when we discussed the previous group of amendments, the committee is to be comprised of six members: three are judicial members, to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, and three are non-judicial members, to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. To alter the composition of the OPRC, the Lord Chancellor is required to consult the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals. That requirement is in line with the existing rule-making committees. The reason for including this power is that, as the scope of the online procedure rules increases, it may be necessary to expand the committee’s membership or widen its expertise in order to assist in making rules for different online procedures. I therefore urge the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Alex Cunningham
I am pleased to hear the Minister talk about the possibility of the committee being expanded in future, and the process for doing so. That is heartening: it is certainly something that needs to be looked at. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
To recap, clause 21 provides for the membership of the online procedure rules committee and its powers. It also includes the procedure for appointing members. The committee is to comprise six members, of whom three are to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice: one person who is a judge of the senior courts of England and Wales, and two persons, each of whom is either a judge of the senior courts of England and Wales; a circuit judge or district judge; a judge of the first-tier tribunal; a judge of the upper tribunal; an employment judge; or a judge of the employment appeal tribunal—a fair selection. The Lord Chancellor is to appoint the committee’s non-judicial members: one person who is a barrister in England and Wales, a solicitor of the senior courts of England and Wales, or a legal executive; one person who has experience in, and knowledge of, the lay advice sector; and one person who has experience in, and knowledge of, information technology related to end users’ experience of internet portals.
Before appointing a person, the Lord Chief Justice must consult the Lord Chancellor, and must also consult the Senior President of Tribunals or—in the case of a person to be a tribunal judge member—secure the agreement of the Senior President of Tribunals. Similarly, the Lord Chancellor must consult the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals and, in the case of a practitioner member, must also consult the relevant authorised body. The range of members for which this clause provides will ensure that the new rule committee will have expertise in the law, the provision of lay advice, and information technology. This will help equip it to produce straightforward, easily understood court rules, which will support the online procedure, which, as far as possible, will be embedded in the online software.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Powers of the Online Procedure Rule Committee
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
Clause 22 provides that the online procedure rules committee has the same rule-making powers that are available to the civil, family and tribunal rule committees. It will therefore have the full range of powers appropriate to any proceedings for which it may make online procedure rules. The committee may also apply any other rules of court. That is to ensure that any rule that is included in the current civil, family and tribunal rules and other rules of court may be used and modified as appropriate to ensure that the online procedure may operate as intended. It does not, however, enable the committee to make procedure rules for procedures that are not subject to the rule-making powers specified in the clause. For example, it may not make online Court of Protection rules because the clause does not give it power to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Power to change certain requirements relating to the Committee
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 23, page 41, line 14, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
‘(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure (see section 45(3)).”
This amendment would make regulations under clause 23 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 93, in clause 24, page 41, line 38, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
‘(7A) A statutory instrument containing Online Procedure Rules is subject to affirmative resolution procedure (see section 45(3)).”
This amendment would make SIs containing Online Procedure Rules subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Amendment 65, in clause 25, page 42, line 5, at end insert—
‘(1A) The written notice under subsection (1) is subject to the concurrence requirement (see section 30(1)).”
This amendment would make the Lord Chancellor’s power to require the Online Procedure Rules Committee to make rules to achieve a specified purpose subject to the concurrence requirement.
Amendment 68, in clause 26, page 42, line 20, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the concurrence requirement (see section 30(1)).”
This amendment would make the Lord Chancellor’s power to make amendments in relation to the Online Procedure Rules subject to the concurrence requirement.
Amendment 94, in clause 26, page 42, line 25, leave out “that amend or repeal any provision of an Act”
This amendment would make all regulations under clause 26 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Amendment 95, in clause 26, page 42, line 27, leave out subsection (6)
See Explanatory Statement for Amendment 94.
Amendment 66, in clause 30, page 43, line 17, after “regulations” insert “or notices”
This is a consequential amendment to include a notice given to the Online Procedure Rules Committee to make rules to achieve a specified purpose within the concurrence requirement.
Amendment 67, in clause 30, page 43, line 21, after “regulations” insert “or notices”
See Explanatory Statement for Amendment 66.
Alex Cunningham
Members of the Committee may be relieved to learn that this will be my final speech on chapter 2.
Clause 23 makes provision for how certain changes relating to the online procedure rules committee can be made. Concern has been raised that the breadth of powers provided to the Lord Chancellor by the online procedure rules provisions in the Bill as drafted is vast, and that there is therefore a danger of a democratic deficit.
Currently, the Lord Chancellor has the power to specify which proceedings will be made subject to the online procedure rules under clause 19; designate exceptions or circumstances where proceedings may be conducted by the standard procedure rules rather than online procedure rules under clause 20; appoint OPR committee members under clause 21; change the composition requirements of the OPR committee under clause 23; allow or disallow online procedure rules made by the OPR committee under clause 24(3); require online procedure rules to be made under the terms of clause 25; and under clause 26(1) the Lord Chancellor may
“by regulations amend, repeal or revoke any enactment to the extent that the Lord Chancellor considers necessary or desirable in consequence of, or in order to facilitate the making of, Online Procedure Rules.”
That is quite a raft of powers for the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor’s powers under clauses 19, 20 and 23 are subject to the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice or the Senior President of Tribunals, depending on whether the regulations relate to proceedings in the courts or tribunals. This is the “concurrence requirement”. However, the power in clause 26 is subject only to a requirement to consult the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunal, while the power to require OPRs to be made in clause 25 is subject to neither a consultation nor a concurrence requirement.
Clause 26 has caused particular concern to some. I note that Joshua Rozenberg has observed that this clause differs in this Bill from its earlier forms in the Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill and the Prisons and Courts Bill, in which there were more stringent limits on the ability of this power to be used to amend future Acts of Parliament. Mr Rozenberg described the refinement of the drafting as “Henry VIII mission creep”. He said:
“Let's imagine that parliament passes new legislation of some sort in 2030. There is a change of government in 2035 and the new lord chancellor thinks the 2030 legislation gets in the way of procedural rules that the incoming government wants to introduce. Using legislation passed in 2022, the lord chancellor will have power to sign an order in 2035 which, if all goes to plan, will repeal legislation made by parliament in 2030. It’s no excuse to say that this is very unlikely to happen — and the clauses are simply included just in case. Having got a foot in the door, ministers are pushing it a bit further open every time they try. Soon, they'll be pushing at an open door. If they really need to amend or repeal an act of parliament, ministers should take the trouble to bring forward legislation in the normal way.”
I certainly agree.
In our evidence session, I asked Richard Leiper about this democratic deficit, and he said that yes, there was something of a democratic deficit, but that his personal view was that
“it seems to reflect the processes that are already in place into the existing procedure rule committee. This appears to have been the accepted approach since about 2005, and it seems to be replicating that.”
He went on:
“It does seem to give a substantial power to the Lord Chancellor in this regard, which I personally find surprising. However, it seems to be the way that things have operated for some time.”–[Official Report, Judicial Review and Courts Public Bill Committee, 2 November 2021; c. 39, Q45.]
For me, that does not make it right, even if it does go back to 2005 and a Labour Government.
I appreciate that clauses 25 and 26 mirror the approach taken with other procedure rule committees. I would say that is no reason not to get it right first time.
Even the Government have recognised that the broad powers provided to the Lord Chancellor in this part of the Bill could have a significant impact on access to justice, and have therefore decided that some of those powers should be subject to the requirement to obtain the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals. Indeed, the concurrence requirements in clauses 19 and 20 were brought forward by the Government in the Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill, on Report, to address concerns that the Bill conferred broad powers on Ministers in particular to limit oral hearings in an extensive range of cases.
The amendments that the Opposition have tabled make provision for two additional mechanisms in this process, allowing for greater scrutiny and accountability of decisions that the Lord Chancellor makes. The first mechanism is covered by amendments 65 to 68, which would make the Lord Chancellor’s power to make rules to achieve a specified purpose and to make amendments in relation to the online procedure rule subject to the concurrence requirement—that is, the powers covered by clauses 25 and 26.
As Lord Judge pointed out when the Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill was at Report stage, it is inconsistent with clauses 19 and 20 of this Bill, which are subject to the concurrence requirement, that the power to require OPRs to be made in clause 25 and the broad Henry VIII power to make consequential or facilitative amendments in clause 26(1) are not also subject to the concurrence requirement. Clauses 25 and 26, taken together, give too much power to the Lord Chancellor: they enable the Lord Chancellor to, as Lord Judge put it,
“overrule the very rules which were made with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 June 2019; Vol. 798, c. 956.]
The Opposition’s amendment is a simple extension of a safeguard that the Government already recognise is appropriate for these types of powers, so I hope the Minister can support our aim here.
The second mechanism is covered by amendments 92 to 95, which would make regulations made under the powers of clause 23 and statutory instruments containing online procedure rules subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, rather than the negative resolution procedure, as the Bill currently allows for. This will provide a different type of safeguard, in that it would allow for greater parliamentary scrutiny of the online procedure rules. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
James Cartlidge
The amendments in this group all relate to the powers granted to the Lord Chancellor through the legislation. I start with amendment 92, which would require the regulations made by the Lord Chancellor to change the composition of the membership of the online procedure rule committee to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The arrangements for making changes to the membership of the committee are the same as those that apply to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, the Family Procedure Rule Committee and the Tribunal Procedure Rule Committee and reflect the existing responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor, the judiciary, the committee and Parliament in making procedure rules.
Any regulations changing the Committees’ membership must be agreed by both the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals. Before making them, the Lord Chancellor is also required to consult other senior members of the judiciary. The regulations must be laid before Parliament and may be subject to debate if either House wishes. That is, I would suggest, an appropriate level of control and scrutiny, as it is for all the other rule committees, and there is no good reason for treating the online procedure rule committee differently in that regard. The amendment is unnecessary, as the arrangements under clause 23 reflect the existing constitutional arrangements, and I therefore urge the hon. Member for Stockton North to withdraw that particular amendment.
Similarly, amendment 68 would require the Lord Chancellor to secure the concurrence of the senior judiciary to, rather than to consult them on, regulations amending, repealing or revoking any enactment. I should start by stressing that this power is designed to allow the Lord Chancellor to make minor revisions or consequential amendments to legislation to support or facilitate the making of online procedure rules.
The provision mirrors the arrangements in place for the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and the Family Procedure Rule Committee, which require the Lord Chancellor to consult the Lord Chief Justice before making regulations of this nature. It is therefore in line with the respective constitutional roles of the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary for the making of procedure rules.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. As I outlined at the beginning of my speech, this is a huge power grab by the Executive.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister laughs and shakes his head, but it is a huge power grab by the Executive, which is all the more reason why we need to ensure that there are protections in the Bill for people within the system. I also say to the Minister that, as I pointed out in my speech, there is a lack of consistency in the approach in different parts of the Bill. I suspect that the Government may well have to repeat some of the work that they have done on the online procedure rule committee, so they might have to correct that on Report. I will leave the Government to do that.
In trying to persuade the Minister that we should apply the affirmative procedure in a much greater way, I do not believe that, as he says, there is sufficient scrutiny by Parliament through the processes that he proposes in the Bill. Far greater powers are passed back to Parliament with the alternative procedure, but I have listened to what the Minister has said and can possibly look forward to amendments on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
To recap, clause 23 enables the Lord Chancellor to alter the composition of the online procedure rules committee in the future, but only with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals. The Lord Chancellor must also consult the head of civil justice, who is Sir Geoffrey Vos, the deputy head of civil justice, who is currently Lord Justice Birss, and the President of the Family Division. Any changes are made by negative resolution.
This is an important provision, because it allows the committee to change, vary or extend its membership as circumstances change and online provisions develop. It also reflects the powers available to existing rule committees. This power is useful, in that it will allow the committee to extend its membership as circumstances change. The power is precedented in other rule committees— for example, it has been used to ensure that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and the Family Procedure Rule Committee include a judicial member with particular experience of proceedings in Wales. I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Cunningham
Briefly, and with reference to what I said before, we believe that the clause leads to a democratic deficit. It is a power grab by the Executive, but we look forward to seeing how it progresses at later stages of the Bill and in the other place.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Process for making Online Procedure Rules
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
Clause 24 outlines the process for making online procedure rules, which mirrors the process by which civil procedure rules, family procedure rules and tribunal procedure rules are made. The clause requires the committee to hold a meeting before making or amending rules, unless it is inexpedient to do so, and to consult any persons that it considers appropriate. Before being submitted to the Lord Chancellor for approval, rules drafted by the committee must be signed by at least three members, with one of the signatories being the Chair, or by a majority of members. The Lord Chancellor may disallow any rules, but must give written reasons for doing so.
This safeguard reflects similar powers available to the Lord Chancellor in relation to civil, family and tribunal rules. The powers have never had to be used, but it is none the less right that an equivalent power is available in relation to the online procedure rules. It would be interesting to know whether the hon. Member for Stockton North would still think they are a power grab if they are never used. I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Power to require Online Procedure Rules to be made
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
The clause gives the Lord Chancellor the power to require online procedure rules to be made. The Lord Chancellor may give the online procedure rule committee written notice that he or she thinks that the online rules should include provision to achieve a specified purpose. The committee must make the rules within a reasonable period and in accordance with the procedure for making rules. The power is consistent with the Lord Chancellor’s powers for other rules committees.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Power to make amendments in relation to Online Procedure Rules
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
The clause gives the Lord Chancellor the power to make amendments to facilitate the making of online procedure rules. It is anticipated that it will be used to make minor revisions to legislation, for example in order to regularise and modernise terminology to match that in new rules. For making regulations, the Lord Chancellor must consult the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals. Any regulations that amend or repeal primary legislation are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and must go before Parliament for approval. Regulations that amend or repeal secondary legislation are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Duty to make support available for those who require it
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
The clause requires the Lord Chancellor to make provision for those who require digital support. HMCTS is moving towards digital services being the default, but we absolutely understand that not everyone is able to use online procedures and may need assistance in starting or progressing their case online.
Digital services are designed with and for users, so that they are easy to use. That includes, for example, ensuring that services work with assistive technology, such as screen readers, and simplifying language to ensure that users understand what they are required to do. HMCTS user contact functions support users with guidance and help on their journey through a service over the phone and through related call centre channels, such as web chat. HMCTS has also awarded a national contract to deliver positive and practical solutions to support users and to break down the barriers of digital exclusion. Through the contract, support will be available in person and remotely through a network of delivery partners who have experience in supporting the users of Justice services.
The measures above seek to direct as many users as possible through the primary digital channels. However, that does not mean that non-professional users will only be able to interact digitally with the court. HMCTS will ensure—as I have explained before—that all users receive an equal service, no matter what channel they engage through. Paper forms will be kept as a channel for non-professional users and work is ongoing to review and simplify those. The use of digital applications has been made mandatory for professional users in some HMCTS services, but in all services paper forms will remain available for non-professional users.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Power to make consequential or supplementary provision
James Cartlidge
The clause details the powers of the Lord Chancellor to make consequential or supplementary amendments to legislation in relation to any other provision within chapter 2 in order to facilitate the making of the online rules. In particular, the Lord Chancellor may amend, repeal or revoke any provisions within an Act of Parliament passed before this legislation or during this parliamentary Session. In addition, the Lord Chancellor may amend, repeal or revoke any provisions within subordinate legislation, irrespective of when the legislation was made or will be made, or which Act the power to make it is contained within. It is anticipated that the power will be used to make minor revisions to legislation, for example in order to regularise and modernise terminology to match that in new rules. Any regulations that amend or repeal primary legislation are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and must go before Parliament. Regulations that amend or repeal secondary legislation are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Amendments of other legislation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss, That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
James Cartlidge
I propose to deal with clause 29 and schedule 4 together, as the clause simply gives effect to that schedule. Schedule 4 amends existing legislation as a result of the new online procedure in courts and tribunals. Those amendments provide that the standard civil family and tribunal procedure rules must be framed to ensure that they do not apply to proceedings while they are subject to the online procedure rules. That provides clarity so that court users are aware of which set of rules apply to their case. This power will ensure that rules made by the online rule committee are not subject to, or undermined by, rules made by the other rule committees.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 30
Judicial agreement to certain regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
Clause 30 explains what is meant by the concurrence requirement, which the Lord Chancellor is required by a number of the preceding clauses to fulfil when making regulations. The requirement is to obtain agreement of the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals when making regulations. The clause explains that the Lord Chancellor must obtain the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice before making regulations that relate to civil or family proceedings in England and Wales, and of the Senior President of Tribunals before making regulations that relate to proceedings in the first-tier, upper, employment or employment appeal tribunals.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Interpretation of this Chapter
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Cartlidge
It is fair to say that this is not the longest speech I have given so far. Clause 31 is a technical clause and merely defines terms used in the online procedure clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 16th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022 View all Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 November 2021 - (16 Nov 2021)
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
Chair, I would like to bring to the Committee’s attention my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a matter of public record that I worked in the nuclear industry prior to my election.
The Chair
We will now hear from Richard Hall, chief energy economist, Citizens Advice, who is appearing via video link. We have until 2.30 pm for this session. Welcome, Mr Hall. Would you like to introduce yourself?
Richard Hall: Good afternoon. My name is Richard Hall. I am the chief energy economist at Citizens Advice. Citizens Advice has a statutory role to act as a consumer representative in the electricity and gas sectors. That comprises a research and advocacy function in terms of trying to understand the issues consumers face and propose better solutions for them; an advice function in terms of helping consumers to understand their rights and options that is provided through our bureaux, our website and a telephone consumer advice service; and providing advanced support to consumers with difficult complaints or issues through an extra help unit that is shared between ourselves and Citizens Advice Scotland based in Glasgow.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Q
Richard Hall: Yes, certainly, Alan. There are good reasons to think that a RAB model could reduce the cost of capital associated with bringing forward new nuclear projects, but it is important to be mindful that consumers are not simply exposed to the cost of capital; they are also exposed to the volume of capital. That is relevant in the case of nuclear because nuclear projects have a track record of coming in over budget and behind schedule.
If you look at the impact assessment that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy published alongside the Bill, it highlights that, on average, new nuclear projects of the nth of a kind—not the first reactor of a particular model to be built, but an iteration of it—have come in 20% over budget within Europe and 100% over budget worldwide since 1990. It also highlights that nuclear projects within Europe have suffered construction time overruns averaging 40% following the final investment decision. The average is 90% on a worldwide basis since 1990. This matters to consumers because, under a RAB model, unlike a contracts for difference model, they are exposed to the cost overruns and to the time overruns if they occur in a different way.
Perhaps to unpack what we mean by that, I should point out that under the CfD model that was adopted for Hinkley Point C a price is guaranteed to the developer for every megawatt-hour of output it produces, and that is inflation-linked, but consumers do not become liable to start paying those costs until the plant is operational. Those costs are pay on delivery. Consumers are not expected to pay in advance of the plant being there. Under a RAB model, consumers would start paying towards the cost of the plant from the time the construction commenced. Indeed, the Bill as it is drafted allows for that. If there are construction cost overruns, consumers will essentially be paying for a benefit in terms of a production facility that is not actually being delivered yet. That is the point about construction time issues.
On cost overrun issues, while the strike price that was agreed for Hinkley Point C appears to some commentators to be quite high, it has the advantage to consumers of being, in effect, an all-in price. If the cost of the build project escalates over time, those escalating costs will have to be met, but they would be met by the developers; they would not be met by consumers. Essentially that risks sits with investors. Under the RAB model, however, it is likely that any cost escalations would be shared between the consumers and investors. At this stage, we do not know exactly how. The BEIS consultation from the autumn of 2019 suggested that it might look at putting in place mechanical sharing factors between the developer and consumer. That means if the construction were to run under or over budget, a proportion of the benefits or additional costs would be borne by the investors and the developers, but a proportion would also be borne by consumers. On that, it is important to be aware that although the developers have some control over construction because they are in control of the overall project, consumers do not have any control over the risk. Essentially, they are the passive recipient of the risks.
In a nutshell, the concern that we have is that if a project were to come in on budget, RAB looks like a very good model potentially, but there is a strong historical track record that suggests that projects may not come in on budget. Under the RAB model, consumers may be exposed to significant cost overruns as a consequence.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Richard Hall: There is a lot in that question. I will try to unpack it if I can—there was something about methods of financing, and something about cost caps too. Regarding cost caps, the Bill envisages that there would be a funding cap essentially—a point at which, if costs escalated significantly above the expected spend, the Secretary of State would be prompted to take a decision on what should happen with those additional costs. I do not believe that the face of the Bill actually stipulates what that materiality would be, and I think it also leaves that decision very much at the Secretary of State’s discretion, so there is the potential that they could simply acknowledge that there was a problem, but continue to put those costs on to consumer bills. That seems to be fairly vague: it leaves room for ambiguity on what a Secretary of State might do in that type of scenario in future.
A couple of things could be done to try to mitigate consumer costs. The first is that the sharing factors that are set out—they are not set out in the Bill; they are to be agreed between the Department and the developer, as to who bears the costs if there are significant cost overruns—should be slanted towards the developer facing most of those costs. Again, that is because consumers have no ability to control those costs whatsoever, whereas the developer does have the ability to control some of those costs. Effectively, that risk needs to be borne as much as possible by the developer. It should be borne in mind that, obviously, that creates some interactions with the cost of capital: effectively, the more you de-risk the developer, the more you reduce the cost of capital, but given that you are only doing that by pushing those risks on to consumers, we think it is probably better to ensure that the developers are subject to as sharp incentives as possible to build it on time.
Turning to the other areas that I think would be of assistance, the Bill envisages that the developer would have a right to appeal any decisions that Ofgem made on the price control that had been agreed for the developer. Intuitively, those appeals are only going to go in one direction—that is, if the developer feels that a settlement is not generous enough to it. It is hardly going to appeal if it feels a settlement is too generous. I notice that elsewhere, in terms of many aspects of energy governance, where appeals processes exist, they are bidirectional: they allow for someone to appeal that a settlement is too tough, but they also allow for people to appeal that a settlement is too weak. We think that type of approach should be followed here: if the developer has the right of appeal to basically ask for more money, other interested parties should have the right of appeal to argue that there should be less money, so there is bidirectional scrutiny and tension there.
A second area in which I think we could help to bear down on costs is that it is quite important that some form of independent third-party impact assessment is made of the key terms of any deal that is agreed under this Bill, and published before that agreement becomes legally binding. I would also like parliamentarians such as yourselves to have an opportunity to see the headline terms of any agreement and that independent third-party impact assessment, and to be able to scrutinise those costs before the agreement becomes legally binding. If that seems like it might be quite an unusual thing to do, because obviously Parliament does not micromanage individual infrastructure purchases, we would argue that it is justified in this case, because we are talking about building assets that will—even at the most conservative estimate—cost consumers tens of billions of pounds, and those costs will be recovered from consumers for potentially 50 or 60 years.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Q
Richard Hall: On those two specific projects, Heathrow and Thames Tideway, I cannot give any insight. I am not particularly close to those individual cases. It is fair to note that in both cases the cost of capital brought forward by the model seems to have been low, in particular in the case of Thames Tideway. On nuclear, I simply go back to the point that there is a large base of literature looking at historical cost overruns and the extent to which things come in on budget. That tends to display fairly consistently that these types of projects are very likely to be subject to optimism bias at the time that they are procured—a belief that they will be cheaper than they actually will be.
In addition to the costs and dates I mentioned from the BEIS impact assessment suggesting the average levels of cost overruns, look at a couple of other examples from academia: Sovacool et al. looked at a global example of 180 new nuclear plants and found that 97% of them came in over budget and that the average cost overrun was 117%; and Flyvbjerg et al. found that in a sample of 194 nuclear plants, the median cost overrun was 68% and the median schedule or construction-time overrun was 40%. That is a fairly large sample set of projects, and the analysis tends to suggest considerable optimism bias for new nuclear—it tends to come in late and over budget.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Richard Hall: I think potentially it could, simply because of the scale of the project. The cheapest cost estimate in the impact assessment is that, for a Hinkley Point C-sized plant put forward on the RAB model, it would cost about £24 billion. That is the cheapest estimate, so we are talking about extremely chunky consumer spend.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Q
Richard Hall: It is hard to see a case for this being the most cost-effective way to spend money on generation. A lot of the argument for whether we need new nuclear or not comes down to whether it is perceived as being useful to provide a balanced generation mix, so that it is available when other forms of low-carbon generation are not available. On that point, I note that the Government are more confident on the need for new nuclear than some of their advisers are. The Committee on Climate Change’s sixth carbon budget work from last December shows a range of pathways to net zero by 2050, some of which involve new nuclear. It talks about it being “possibly” needed, not definitely needed.
The National Infrastructure Commission’s 2018 national infrastructure assessment recommended that the Government consider bringing forward one new large-scale nuclear plant in the 2020s—but only one, suggesting that in general terms the cost reductions in renewables were so sharp and likely to continue that a pivot to renewables appeared a better bet than backing nuclear more forcefully.
The case for whether new nuclear is needed is ambiguous at this stage. Could you get better value for money from investing in other things? I think the challenges of making our homes energy-efficient so that we stop spending so much on energy and reduce emissions should be tackled as a priority.
Alan Brown
Q
Richard Hall: I certainly think that the risk of it being brought out of service earlier than expected has to be borne by the developers rather than by consumers. There is no way in which consumers can forecast or manage that risk.
On affordability over 60 years, we are talking about a 60-year lifespan, but there may be another 10 years in addition for construction, so we are talking about a payback period that, if we had the decision now, might continue until 2091 or towards the end of the century. It is extremely hard to know what options will be available to consumers 10 or 20 years out, let alone 70 years. It is hard to forecast whether it will offer consumers good value for money over that period.
One can only note that the cost of alternatives—renewables, storage and so on—has fallen rapidly over time. There is some risk of buyer’s regret: an option that looks cost-competitive today might look quite cost-uncompetitive quite rapidly.
Alan Brown
Q
Richard Hall: That is a good question. If the special administration regime were to be used, I understand that effectively it would mean that the special administrator would be taking on that risk. That may mean that it became a public liability. I do not know how a special administrator would sell on that risk to others.
In terms of where it would be borne if the special administration regime were never used, I think that would come down to the terms of the contract agreed between the Government and the developer. In its current form, the Bill basically enables the Government to enter into negotiations with a developer to agree a contract based around the RAB model, but the details of that contract are not contained in the Bill. Earlier, I said that I thought it very important that an independent third-party impact assessment be laid before Parliament after a deal is struck but before it becomes contractually binding. That would provide the opportunity to understand where the liabilities would sit in that type of situation.
Mark Jenkinson
Q
Richard Hall: We do not have an anti-nuclear stance; we are technology neutral. In terms of the options between bringing forward new nuclear or leaving catastrophic climate change unchecked, there is no question that nuclear is an option that can help us to reduce our emissions and tackle the climate change crisis. We do not have concerns on the technology itself, and whether it can be done safely and so on. Our concerns are simply around cost. It looks like a costly option compared with others.
On whether we have a preferred approach, because we are technology neutral we do not have a preference for any particular technology over others. I would simply highlight such things as the analysis of the Committee on Climate Change, which showed a range of possible pathways to 2050 that it considered to be affordable. Some of them involved nuclear and some of them did not. It appears that there is a choice to be made.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Richard Hall: Yes, certainly. Paragraph 4.2 of the impact assessment sets out a range of tables showing what the estimated construction and financing costs would be for a Hinkley Point C-sized power station in a range of scenarios: under a CfD with 20% cost overruns, or with 100% overruns, or under the RAB model at various different costs of capital—
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you very much, Mr Hall.
Examination of Witnesses
Chris Ball, Dawn James, Cameron Gilmour and Alan Woods gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Chris Ball, managing director of EMEA nuclear at SNC-Lavalin, and Alan Woods, director for strategy and business development at Rolls-Royce, both of whom are giving evidence in person. We will also hear from Dawn James, vice-president of nuclear at Jacobs Engineering Group, and Cameron Gilmour, vice-president of nuclear at Doosan Babcock, who are both giving evidence via video link.
We have until 3.30 pm for this session. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Chris Ball: I am Chris Ball, managing director of the Europe-middle east business at Atkins SNC-Lavalin.
Alan Woods: I am Alan Woods, director of strategy and business development for Rolls-Royce SMR.
Cameron Gilmour: Good afternoon. I am Cameron Gilmour, and I run the nuclear business at Doosan Babcock.
Dawn James: Good afternoon. I am Dawn James, the vice-president responsible for the nuclear power business at Jacobs.
The Chair
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for these witnesses? I call Virginia Crosbie.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Q
Chris Ball: We talk about the RAB model, from the numbers that I have heard, probably putting about £1 on to consumer bills on a monthly pay-in. To put that into the context of some of the price increases that we have seen through the energy sector over recent weeks, we are probably talking about an 80% increase from some of the figures that I have seen. I have been looking at this with elderly relatives as well.
When you look at the RAB model in terms of the impact on consumers, there is a cost associated with that—of course there is. It is very limited compared with many other models, and we have to take the long-term view in the energy sector. That is something that the energy sector has been sadly lacking for many, many years. We have to take that 2050 view. It represents very good value for money in the big scheme of things.
Alan Woods: We welcome any model that helps the deployment of new nuclear. From a Rolls-Royce SMR perspective, if we were to deliver our power plant under a RAB, we estimate that it would be capable of getting in the order of £35 a megawatt-hour, whereas a CfD mechanism would be in the order of £60 a megawatt-hour. That is the different that we would forecast.
In terms of one against the other, it comes down to a question of risk. Our whole programme is designed to eliminate risk, particularly construction and build risk, and to move away from what we would call a one-off infrastructure project to a factory-repeatable product that means we can build certainty into the design. We believe that we can use the CfD mechanism for our plants. We believe that we can raise the private capital to fund that, and that is something that we will be exploring in the coming weeks and months.
Dawn James: The way that I look at this, large gigawatt-scale nuclear power stations require a huge up-front investment. Under the CfD model, looking fundamentally at the costs over time, there are a huge number of hidden costs associated with financing these projects, and those costs over time will essentially all be passed on to the consumer.
Under the RAB model, by driving down the uncertainties associated with financing costs because of risk, we are able to actually—
The Chair
Ms James, I am afraid your evidence is not very clear. Could you move nearer the microphone?
Dawn James: I do apologise. I will do that. Is that clearer?
The Chair
Thank you.
Dawn James: The costs associated with the CfD model are passed on to the consumer over a much longer period of time. Because the capital investment is so much greater due to financing, ultimately the cost to the consumer is much greater than it would be under the RAB model.
Cameron Gilmour: I largely echo the points made by all three of my colleagues. When we look at the Hinkley Point C case, the financing cost within the CfD is the largest amount within the rating—over £82.50. The cost of construction at Hinkley is actually a small element—£11—of that CfD price. The more we can introduce a more economical financing model, that is obviously of benefit to the consumer down the line, so we welcome that.
The Chair
Thank you. Anthony Browne or Virginia, did either of you have a follow-up question?
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Q
Alan Woods: We believe we can, yes. It is worth noting that our plant is an order of magnitude different to the larger ones in terms of the capital. It is also different in terms of the time it takes to build and in the fact that we have completely changed the risk profile. As I say, this is a factory-built product and it is something we are used to.
Anthony Browne
Q
Alan Woods: We have removed a lot of the construction risk. We have what is called our fourth factory, so we actually assemble our modules on site in a controlled factory environment. This allows us to remove and reduce that risk profile. It is a completely different ball game.
In that regard, we believe that we can attract private capital. We spent some time at COP26 last week and there is an appetite in the financial markets for investment in projects that can demonstrate an acceptable risk profile, which we believe we can. It is up to us to demonstrate that and to attract that private finance, but we think that is doable.
Anthony Browne
Q
Alan Woods: I am referring there to the CfD model. If we have the CfD, which is essentially providing some certainty of returns, then that certainty of returns, coupled with the fact that the risk profile of our product is completely different, represents an attractive financial investment.
Anthony Browne
Q
Alan Woods: Well, look, if RAB is available then RAB is great. If you have got that high-risk profile, it will provide even better value to the consumer. From our perspective, the pace is also important and RAB is not legislated for yet. CfD is an available mechanism that is tried and tested, and we believe we can make it work. Therefore, to operate at pace, our preferred route at the moment would be to move forward with the CfD approach.
Anthony Browne
Q
Alan Woods: Yes, sure. There is nothing stopping you.
Anthony Browne
Change horses.
Alan Woods: Yes, it is no secret that SMRs work by building a fleet. How you finance each SMR does not mean they all have to be financed the same way. We are also looking at models for the future, looking at the net zero challenge. The scale of energy or electricity generation that we will need to decarbonise things like heat and transport, or for synthetic aviation fuel, hydrogen and so on—it will take an enormous amount of electricity to make those new fuels. We see a world where you might need to do that on energy campuses that operate in an off-grid manner to maximise that value. In that kind of a regime in the future, we may be able to build these under a separate, more simplified PPA model.
Anthony Browne
Q
Chris Ball: Yes. I would take it back a step, actually, because we cannot let this conversation become either/or; it has to be both. I say that because, if you look at the future net zero world, the general view is that we should electrify as much as possible and then decarbonise the electricity supply industry. The electrification will probably double our demand on the grid and will probably lead to a tripling of our capacity on the grid, because a large amount of it is intermittent renewables.
There are various studies out there and everyone has a different view, but broadly speaking a quarter of the grid should be—will have to be—firm power, for a host of reasons, not least the storage costs escalating almost exponentially with increased of renewables penetration. We are talking around 50 GW of firm power, or 50 large plants; Hinkley is 3.2 GW. You have two main sources for that. The first is gas with carbon capture and sequestration. By the way, that energy sector has risks; there is no large-scale carbon capture and sequestration plant in the UK, but some of the modelling suggests that we would have to capture and sequester in the UK alone four times the current world capacity of carbon capture and sequestration. The other source is nuclear. This should not become an either/or conversation. This should be a conversation about how we make sure that the CCS market starts moving, the SMR market starts moving, and the large-scale nuclear market starts moving.
For context, we need to build something like 9 GW a year across all technologies—firm power and renewable power—between now and 2050. If you go back over the last 60 years, our peak output is of the order of the construction of 6 GW a year, averaging at 3 GW, so we have to treble the average output every year for the next 30 years, working to the 2050 timescale. This has to be a conversation about all. There is no doubt that, to push large-scale nuclear forward, the RAB model seems to the most appropriate method.
Anthony Browne
Q
Chris Ball: This is not really my area of expertise; I suggest you are better off asking other people about that. The big piece for me is the risk allocation within that model—where risk sits. There is a balance there. From listening to some of the earlier evidence, clearly the more risk that is transferred to the developer, the more attractive that might become to some investors. The flipside of that is that you are starting to move to a scenario where risk is priced in through the delivery vehicle. That is a trade-off that I would be very careful of. I will limit my comments to that area.
Anthony Browne
Q
Dawn James: I hope you can hear me okay now. I am not an expert in the field of investors, but building on what Chris said, it would certainly bring more developers into the UK. As I think you are all aware, a number of programmes have started then stopped, including at Wylfa and Moorside, and that is largely down to issues around financing. So yes, I believe that the RAB model will definitely attract more investors and developers, which, as you just said, is critical to our meeting our net zero target.
Anthony Browne
Q
Cameron Gilmour: Looking at some of the detail and how the Bill has been written, it seems to be designed to encourage that investment. Again, I am not a financial expert, but it is encouraging to see that nuclear is recognised as playing a key part in our journey towards net zero. From an investment perspective, it becomes something that the Government want to invest in and commit to, so you would say that has to be an encouraging sign for any potential investors.
Anthony Browne
Q
Alan Woods: I notice I keep getting questions first, so I have less time to think of the answer, but—
Anthony Browne
I can ask Chris first if you want.
Chris Ball: No, that’s fine. [Laughter.]
Alan Woods: Look, clearly there needs to be a regulator, and a regulator is needed to regulate the way RAB is deployed and managed. From our perspective, Ofgem is as good a point to start as anywhere.
Chris Ball: Clearly this creates a new demand, and there is a need for additional capacity somewhere to oversee the management of the RAB model. I think the question is whether Ofgem is best placed to do that, and the answer is: possibly.
The other piece that I would look at is, ultimately, where our country’s energy system architect is now. Who is defining the way in which our energy system should look and operate in 2050? Is there benefit in establishing a new energy system architect who takes decisions on the future power mix, and actually putting into that system architect the capability to oversee investments in all sectors? I think that is one of the reflections that I would have about the controlling mind in how we reach that 2050 net zero energy system.
Anthony Browne
Q
Chris Ball: It may well be within Government and BEIS, absolutely. But I think we do need that capability firmly established in one place. I am not suggesting it should necessarily sit outside of Government or BEIS, but we should have a clear collection of people under that title as the controlling mind.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Q
Alan Woods: Let me break that down in terms of the proven part. Our design and our plant use proven technology. At the base of the reactor island, there is a pressurised water reactor. It is the same as what Rolls-Royce has designed, built and operated for the past 60 years in the submarine programme. We do not have the same set of requirements as the submarine programme, but it is the same core technology. Is it proven? Yes, it is absolutely proven. We know it works and that we can build it. We are building them today.
The rest of the turbine island plant is designed to use products that are already available in the market today. We are not designing a power plant that requires us to invent a specialist product here or a specialist product there and that has never been made before. It is designed to use products that exist in the market. Even though it is a steam turbine, it is a commodity product we can buy. All the constituent parts at our plant are proven technology. Our civil module approach has been proven by our partner, Laing O’Rourke, which is making modules of this nature today at Worksop. We will expand that facility to replicate and grow that module manufacturing capacity. The constituent parts are all proven. There is no technology innovation at the plant that is questionable as to whether it will reach the right technology-readiness level.
Then we come to our ability to manufacture and join the modules together. Again, this is not a technology challenge. It becomes more of a logistical challenge and there is plenty of evidence in other industries—in fact, inside Rolls-Royce—where we manage those logistics from the supply chain to the module facilities to the delivery to site and to the installation and commissioning of them.
I do not accept that we are not proven technology; we absolutely are. As I said, we have built into the design, intentionally from the outset, technologies and features that remove the risks associated with traditional construction. It is no longer a very large construction project; it is a factory of products. For example, when we build the power plant, we assembly the modules on site where an average of 500 people are assembling the parts. We do that to move those jobs into the module facilities and the supply chain and into the factory environment where we are manufacturing the same products over and over again in a production line environment.
The Chair
Do any of the other witnesses want to answer the question?
Chris Ball: There are two aspects to the question. First is the one about proven technology, which Alan has covered. Secondly, there is taking the lessons learned and leveraging the skills and capability within the UK nuclear industry. If we look at Hinkley Point C from unit 1 to unit 2, we see broadly in the order of a 20% reduction in time scales and costs as we take the lessons from unit 1 on to unit 2. Clearly, if we carry on with that same trajectory at Sizewell C, it will be 40%. I am not suggesting that it would necessarily get to 40% but one would assume it would be in excess of 20%. That is a benefit. Going back to the RAB model, leveraging the experience of Hinkley Point C affords good protection against the risks of cost and schedule overrun. Equally, leveraging those lessons into the SMR programme and from the skills and capability that have been built up on existing nuclear programmes is the benefit from all programmes.
My big fear for us as an organisation, which has several thousand engineers in the UK, is that disruption to workflow means that we lose the lessons learned from the industry. That is not to the benefit of the UK, job creation and the cost of our energy.
The Chair
Dawn, do you wish to comment?
Dawn James: I merely wish to echo Chris’s point that intelligence replication will drive down risks and costs significantly. I really wish to impress on everyone the need for pace in getting the Bill through. A huge number of jobs are at risk across the whole UK.
Can you not hear me very well?
The Chair
Not very well at all, I’m afraid. If you’d like to speak up.
Dawn James: I have never been accused of this before. I was echoing Chris’s point about the benefit of intelligence replication and how it will reduce risks and therefore drive down costs. I was also pressing the need for pace in moving the Bill through so that we retain the skills and the knowledge as we move from Hinkley to Sizewell. That is where a huge amount of value can be realised.
The Chair
Cameron, do you have anything to add?
Cameron Gilmour: I will be brief. The thing to remember is that the Sizewell C project is global European pressurised reactor Nos. 7 and 8, so the core technologies are proven and operational in a civil nuclear power plant right now. The important thing for the industry is that we generated the continuity and recreated our nuclear expertise in the UK when we started on Hinkley Point C. We have learned a huge number of lessons and we have created a lot of energy in the industry and on the programme. I echo the points made about pace and moving forward. If we give people continuity of employment and the long-term horizon, we will retain the skills and the knowledge. Those skills will be there not just for the gigawatt plants that we can build but for SMRs. For me, this is a crossroads not just for the engineering and construction industry but for the nuclear industry. The skills have been hard earned, and the lessons have been hard learned, so we have to capitalise on that and move forward quickly.
Alan Brown
Q
Alan Woods: That would depend on a number of factors, including the expected rate of return that the investors were looking for and the value of the CfD itself. In the previous session you were talking about having a requirement for 60 years to pay back on. It would not be that long for an SMR because the capital cost is that much lower and the speed we can build them that much quicker, particularly once we have reached that nth unit and we are rolling them off the production line. The payback period will therefore be a lot quicker, and that will reflect what is available on the CfD. It becomes a balancing act.
Alan Brown
Q
Alan Woods: There are two things to say on that. First, it is not just about repetition to get down the costs of SMR; there is a core reduction in the capital cost per megawatt purely driven by that factory approach. Taking jobs off an external site environment and moving them to a factory delivers immediate portable efficiencies anyway in terms of the efficiencies that we get out of the people and the product. The method of manufacture and build reduces the capital cost to start with. What was the second part of the question?
Alan Brown
Q
Alan Woods: We need to have a pipeline of orders, mainly for us to underpin the investment in the factories, and for the supply chain to underpin the investment that it is looking for in its own facilities and capability capacity. They do not all have to be in the UK. Certainly, we are equally looking at export markets to deliver that order book and line of sight to orders.
The other critical point is that to take advantage of the reduced capital of an SMR, it is beneficial to look, in certain circumstances, at an SMR as a single product. If we start grouping them together in chains of four, five or six as a single project, all of a sudden the capital goes higher and you have a similar position, in some respects, to raising large amounts of capital for single projects. There is a benefit to be had from treating SMRs in smaller multiples, but we need line of sight to orders off the back of the first order or two for us to get the confidence to build the factories, and for the supply chain to invest behind us.
Alan Brown
Q
Alan Woods: We have a very detailed schedule to get us to the first of the fleet, as we call it, operating by 2031. The first one has a number of activities that are unique to the first unit. For example, we have to go for generic design assessment, which we entered last week. We have to build those factories and the supply chain. That puts more time into building the first unit. Coupled with that, we know that the first unit will take as long, because it is that first one, and that is in our plan.
The Chair
Q
Dawn James: The only thing that I would add is that, as I think Chris said before, we have an ever-increasing demand for electricity in the UK. Our current suite of nuclear power stations bar Sizewell B will all be off the bars by 2030, so we really need to be investing in those big gigawatts and in SMRs, using whichever models are appropriate.
The Chair
Q
Cameron Gilmour: I am largely in agreement. I will reinforce Alan’s point about the need for certainty, where any developer or investor needs a programme. When we create a programme, whether it is gigawatt-sized or SMRs, we create that confidence, the continuity of resources, and then we start to see the efficiencies flow through in the programme as we deliver them, whether it is factory or site construction.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Alan Woods: We actually challenged the IAEA on its definition. The response we got was that, at the time it defined an SMR, that was halfway between what it classed as a medium reactor and a small reactor. There was no set rationale for why it classified, and it was many years ago, that 300 MW. The simple reason that ours is 470 MW is that we set a requirement on the design to be road transportable. Each module has to be transportable to site by road. That gives us maximum site flexibility. It also removes the need for expensive additional infrastructure, such as new port facilities or new roads, to get the parts in.
Having set the size for the biggest module to be road transportable, the biggest limitation across Europe is about a diameter of 4.5 metres for the biggest module. If we set that as the maximum size for our reactor pressure vessel, that gives us an internal diameter and an internal volume for that pressure vessel. Using conventional available fuel that is made today in the UK and elsewhere, that sets the power that we can get out of that pressure vessel, so we need to design around that power.
The objective that we had, which was set by the utility partners we have worked and continue to work with, was that they want the maximum power for the least capital cost. We are therefore delivering that within the constraint of road transportability.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Alan Woods: Yes; all new plants that come to the UK have to go through the generic design assessment process. We put in our application to enter that process last week.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Alan Woods: Our next phase of the programme is for the next three and a half to four years, which will get us to the end of GDA step 2. That is the point at which we have completely de-risked it—not that we see any risk to going through the regulation, because as I said, this is proven technology power plant. We have already been working with the regulator for some time. At that point, we move to the final step, which is step 3, and that will take about another 18 months.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Alan Woods: We would actually start building ahead of that, because the GDA process allows us to prioritise the longer-lead items, the critical items, up front. We validate those with the Office for Nuclear Regulation early, on the basis that we can then get a release to order to accelerate the manufacturing process. We can do some of that activity in parallel by the way that we sequence the assessment through the GDA activity.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Alan Woods: No, it is eminently possible by the 2030s; it is very doable.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Chris Ball: If we work on the basis that Hinkley C is on line in let’s call it five years from now, we would have an issue if we held back over that time and thought that we then just move across. Naturally, within any project there is a phasing—there is a phasing of skills which means that we need to maintain a continuity almost at a lower level in terms of the breakdown of those skills. In my own organisation we currently have of the order of 600 people mobilised on Hinkley Point C. At this point in time, that is largely connected with civil engineering, civil design, design of structures, and that positions us quite clearly in a good position for future export markets. Those skills start to demobilise 12 months from now. Naturally in any major project such as this, civil engineering design is one of the earlier phases of the project. We will start to demobilise those skills 12 months from now, if not sooner, and you would probably say that we would demobilise three quarters of that skills base over the course of the subsequent 18 months. We are talking of a one year to two and a half year period over which we would be demobilising three quarters of our workforce, and taking skills out of the industry.
We would look at other neighbouring industries that have a demand on common skills bases to ensure that we maintain employment where possible, but it still represents a loss of capability from the industry that we may or may not be able to bring back in at some future point. That 12-month period from now is what is high on our mind.
Virginia Crosbie
Q
Alan Woods: Chris made the point earlier that net zero is such an enormous challenge. We often think about decarbonisation in the context of the grid, but the grid in the UK in particular represents about 20% of the total energy we use. The rest of it is heat and transport. As we look to decarbonise heat and transport, there are not that many routes available, certainly in some of them. Hydrogen is one, synthetic fuels is one and of course more electrification, but the common denominator among all of those is that you need more clean electricity. The scale is enormous. We therefore welcome any financing mechanism that will help any industry, not just the nuclear industry, bring forward those clean technologies, because the reality is that we have to have them if we are going to meet net zero.
The implications if we are not innovative with how we approach financing both in nuclear but also in other industries mean that we become dependent on other sources of technologies—imported technologies financed from overseas, which bring with them the whole dependency on other nations for our critical energy infrastructure. Increasing that dependency puts our ability to meet net zero at more and more risk.
Chris Ball: I will take a step back here. Earlier, I mentioned that there is a need for about 9 GW a year of construction to take place each year for the next 30 years. We need to find a way of building everything we possibly can in a way that is most cost-effective for the consumer. In every single area, there will be challenges for us to overcome.
People talk about offshore wind at £40 per megawatt-hour strike price. Actually, when it comes to the last two offshore wind farms—one up in East Anglia and one in Hornsea—one was at about £120 and one at £140 a megawatt-hour initial strike price. I recognise that offshore wind prices have been coming down; that is because of consistent underpinning Government policy. We have to replicate that in each and every one of these areas.
Just because offshore wind prices have come down, does not mean that they will continue to do that; they will reach a plateau and companies will start to go to deeper waters and floating offshore wind prices will pick up. We are also judging things on an old-fashioned measure of the levelised cost of electricity, but for renewables we need to start building in the cost of energy storage as well. That does not come cheap. There is a lot of talk about hydrogen, but that requires a lot of power. For every electron that goes into generating hydrogen, we might get 0.3 electrons back out again; it is not a one for one. That is quite often lost in the debate. Actually, I am a supporter of all these technologies; what I am saying is that we need to look at how we manage those risks.
Net zero will not be achieved without nuclear. From an engineering perspective, the system requires firm power on the grid. The RAB model is a good way of driving forward large-scale nuclear for the benefit of the consumer. Look at the levelised cost of electricity at, let us say, £40 per megawatt-hour for wind, noting my earlier comment, and add the storage costs; if you compare that with nuclear and the RAB model, the prices are very similar. Obviously, Alan also knows the SMR nuclear market very well and would say that, yes, it is similar there.
It worries me that if we do not find a way of pushing all these technologies forward, including carbon capture and sequestration and the technical challenges around that, the risk of failure for the 2050 net zero system is very high.
The Chair
Q
Dawn James: Yes, please. There is a risk of not having financing models for UK electricity prices. We have seen some evidence of it this year. Earlier this summer, the wind was not blowing—I know it is a trite phrase, but it is so true—and the sun was not shining very much. We were having to fire up gas plants and to bring coal plants back on to meet the needs that we had then and to use our current fleet of nuclear power stations that, as I said before, had come offline.
Not having the financing model so that we have control of our energy supply here in the UK would mean that we would be held hostage by other nations. We have seen what has happened with gas prices. I am sure that you have heard all these arguments from other people; maybe it has even been quite emotional. It is a huge risk to every type of taxpayer in this country if we do not take control of our electricity generation, and not just from a net zero point of view. But actually, we will not achieve what we need to from a net zero point of view without nuclear.
Cameron Gilmour: I can reinforce that. Our baseload generation comes to the end of its life in this decade; if we do not replace that and add to it, we will not continue our net zero ambitions with the current technologies on the table.
Dawn made a really good point about security of supply. We have seen what has happened to gas prices over the last few months. Baseload nuclear gives us confidence around pricing and supply. It is very complementary with renewables as well, with a mixed system of gigawatts, SMRs and future technologies being very complementary with all the renewables that we have on the grid and planned.
Virginia Crosbie
Q
Chris Ball: I would observe that it is about making sure that companies come together as one, and that there is leadership in the industry. If a RAB model supports and encourages that, fantastic. Looking at nuclear nations around the world, those that have been successful in the decades since—the 2000s and ’90s onwards—we tend to find a clear industry lead. Sometimes that is the operator, and sometimes it is a reactor vendor, behind which everyone else is corralled. It is probably that leadership that we used to have in the UK in decades gone by, and behind which everyone corrals, that has aided a successful industry, particularly in overseas exports. That is the piece that is missing at the moment, but that does not mean that industry should not come together and do something about it itself. It probably should, and I include myself in that comment. If RAB encourages that, all the better, but that is an observation that I would make.
Alan Woods: I would say that for us to be seen as a global leader in nuclear again we need to own the technology as a nation. We need to own the intellectual property; we need to export it; we need to be the country that other countries come to when they are thinking about wanting to deploy and exploit nuclear solutions in their home markets. I think that we will get there. With SMR, we will definitely get there. I think that that is what differentiates us.
You only need to read the news—there is an awful lot of noise around SMRs. There are a lot of vendors out there, and there is a lot of confusion about what is near-term and what are future technologies. I can speak at first hand, as I was in the Czech Republic yesterday, and they said that there is one thing that differentiates us. They believe that we can and will do it—and that is not true for everyone they look at. Having our own technology, coupled with the heritage that we have as a nation, we can and will grow back our position of being seen as a global leader in nuclear technologies around the world, without a doubt.
Dawn James: I think your question, Virginia, is about the magic key to unlocking or getting back to that fabulous heritage that we have in the nuclear industry. At this moment in time, yes, it is, and we really welcome the legislation that is moving forward. I cannot begin to tell you how excited I am finally to see my industry moving forward at pace. I started in the nuclear industry when Sizewell B was commissioned—at the back end of the construction of the last power station in the UK—yet we still have a really thriving nuclear industry. This is the key to unlocking and creating an industry that will thrive for many years to come.
Cameron Gilmour: A couple of points. I think that it is probably a question for the developers about gigawatt plants—could they raise the capital required without RAB? Probably the answer is no. There is a bigger issue at stake, which is sustaining the advantages in the ’60s and ’70s that Virginia talked about, and being able to have a new build programme that is both gigawatt and SMRs—EMRs in due course. That helps us to sustain expertise and knowledge, and help people with the careers that Dawn and I have had, for apprentices and for graduates in modern history. Without that funding we do not have a programme, and without a programme we do not have an industry with a future.
Anthony Browne
Q
Chris Ball: Again, that is probably not my area of expertise. The way I have looked at this is to look at every technology, and where the challenge is around enabling mass deployment of that technology. With CCS at this point in time, the key issue is not necessarily about the financing but about how the market is going to be structured and the quality of demonstrator projects.
There are different models, of course, but if you believe some of the modelling out there, we would need to capture and sequester within the UK four times the current world capacity. That is not without its challenges. So in answer to your question, I would suspect that, of course, it can be applied to that, but I actually think there are other key focus areas that need some attention to start that market moving—not least the deployment of demonstrator projects in the near term hopefully as well.
Virginia Crosbie
Q
Chris Ball: I think that is absolutely right, if you look at the RAB modelling. You have got to look at this from the concept of managing risk. How do we manage risk in the best possible way? You manage that risk through commonality and through ensuring that capability remains within the industry. We might deploy that commonality as pressurised water reactors. It might be a fleet of a couple of different designs, for instance, instead of one. From a risk perspective, it starts to consolidate down to a smaller number of different designs, with a level of commonality, where we can really drive risk and take the lessons from more projects to the next as well.
Alan Woods: A fleet clearly drives cost benefits. That is absolutely true of SMRs, despite the fact that they are factory produced anyway. We need that throughput in the factories. I would go back to the point I raised at the start. We welcome RAB. It is a mechanism that helps reduce cost of capital, but from our perspective we see there are alternative mechanisms, such as leaning on the CfD mechanism, and pace is important for us. We need to start thinking about delivering this fleet now, and that is what we are doing. Therefore, we have to look at mechanisms that are available for us now. We believe we can do this from a CfD to start with.
Dawn James: A fleet approach, without a shadow of doubt, drives down costs to the consumer by driving up our ability to replicate and driving in lessons learned from one station to the next. That security of work allows us to develop our workforce and to bring more people in. The more people you bring in at the bottom end, the more you drive down your costs, because you can spread the workforce across a number of different projects. It drives down costs in so many ways that, ultimately, that does get passed on to the consumer.
Cameron Gilmour: Yes, I agree with that. I will just bring a people angle to this as well. When I talk to some of the amazing, talented young apprentices and people in our business and we talk about this exciting future, there is no question that, without RAB, we will not have that opportunity to create that future for them, which would be a huge waste of talent. RAB is the enabler to getting that certainty and continuity for that next generation.
The Chair
Thank you. If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. I am sorry about some of the technical issues that we have had—that happens. We can move on to the next panel.
Examination of witnesses
Tom Thackeray, Tom Greatrex and Rebecca Groundwater gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Tom Thackeray, director for decarbonisation, Confederation of British Industry; Tom Greatrex, chief executive officer, Nuclear Industry Association; and Rebecca Groundwater, director of external relations, Energy Industries Council, all of whom are giving evidence by video link. We have until 4.15 pm for this session. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Tom Thackeray: I am Tom Thackeray, the programme director for decarbonisation at the Confederation of British Industry. We are the UK’s largest business representative organisation, representing small, medium and large businesses right across the country. My role is aiding businesses’ decarbonisation efforts and pursuit of sustainability. Part of that is influencing Government policy to enable them to invest, and part of it is working with businesses directly to drive down their own carbon footprints.
Tom Greatrex: Good afternoon. I am Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, which is the trade association for the UK civil nuclear industry, representing companies throughout the supply chain.
Rebecca Groundwater: I am Rebecca Groundwater, and I am responsible for external affairs at the Energy Industries Council. We are a supply chain energy trade association. We represent all the energy sectors, not only in the UK but internationally, and we have five other offices in Houston, Kuala Lumpur, Dubai, London and one other that always escapes me—apologies.
The Chair
Thank you very much for attending, all of you. Could Members please indicate to me whether they have any questions to the panel? Dr Alan Whitehead.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Tom Greatrex: Apologies, but I missed part of the question; it cut off partway through, but I think I got the gist in relation to Chinese investment in UK nuclear. I think that is what you were asking about—is that correct?
Dr Whitehead
Yes, basically.
Tom Greatrex: You will recall, I am sure, the original arrangements that were made to facilitate Chinese investment in UK nuclear. China General Nuclear, who are currently the minority financial shareholder in Sizewell C, are also a member of the Nuclear Industry Association and have a potential project at Bradwell. In terms of technology, it is very clear that any reactor technology has to go through the same process to be approved, and that is done independently by the Office for Nuclear Regulation. I do not think there is any difference in the thoroughness of that approach, wherever the technology comes from.
However, making decisions on the larger geopolitical issues is, I am afraid, way above my current—or ever anticipated—pay grade. As far as I am concerned and as far as the industry is concerned, Chinese companies have significant expertise in nuclear capacity and have built quite a lot of nuclear capacity, working with different reactor designs in China. Whether, and to what extent, they should be involved in the UK is not really for me to express a view on.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Tom Greatrex: In terms of that funding being available, for a number of years, the Nuclear Industry Association and companies that we represent have made representations to Government about the costs associated with large-scale projects prior to getting to final investment decision. Significant amounts of money were spent on projects that have not happened during that process, and that pre-development funding is something that needed to be considered.
As to what that announcement covers, we have asked Government for further information on that. At the moment the information we have is that that is funding that could be available to a range of different projects and opportunities, but nothing specific. In relation to what I think was your implied question, on whether this is instead of buying out the CGN stake in Sizewell, it has not been made clear to us that that is what it is for.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Tom Greatrex: Yes, we have had the announcements and spoken to officials about the announcements, but we do not have any more detail than is currently available.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Tom Greatrex: Well, I hope that there will be clarity on that and other aspects of what has been announced by the Government in recent announcements as we proceed.
Anthony Browne
Q
Tom Greatrex: The Bill sets out a framework for a mechanism that we as the industry welcome. We think it is very important to be able to facilitate development of new projects. There are levels of detail that are not covered in the primary legislation, and I think you have touched on some of those in relation to exactly how aspects of risk sharing will be undertaken and the role of the regulator, which will be Ofgem—the expertise available to that body, and the fact that transitioning into being able to undertake what is effectively a new role is going to be significantly important. I am not sure those would necessarily be in the primary legislation, but there are aspects of this where there will need to be further information and development before a regulated desktop-based model can be used for nuclear development.
Anthony Browne
Q
Tom Thackeray: From the CBI’s perspective, we do not have any significant concerns around what is included in the Bill, but as has been noted previously, there is a framework for the establishment of a regulated asset base model, and the details around designation and the risk-sharing profile are things that will be worked out on an individual project basis further down the line, which should be the case when legislating in this way.
Anthony Browne
Q
Tom Thackeray: Yes, from our members’ perspectives, they are comfortable with that way of operating.
Anthony Browne
Q
Rebecca Groundwater: I would echo what previous panellists have said. We have engaged with our members on this and, although the Bill is a framework and there will be more detail going forward, they are happy with how things are at the moment. There are no big gaps for them as the Bill currently stands.
Anthony Browne
Q
Tom Thackeray: I think that the Bill recognises the particularities of the nuclear sector and the state that we are in, in terms of having built the first of a kind at Hinkley and the next stage of that process, with the RAB being the apt model for this technology at this time. The RAB has potential in other parts of the energy mix. Carbon capture and storage is one of those areas where we might look to expand it, although we are probably not at that stage of development just at the moment. Across the energy mix, others have tried-and-tested routes to market through the contracts for difference regime. So this adds another piece to the puzzle in providing the diverse energy mix that businesses want to see. The Bill provides a useful framework that could be replicated if we wanted to use the RAB model in other forms of energy generation in the future.
Rebecca Groundwater: I think the funding model here works for nuclear because of the investment required. At the moment, the other energy sectors are working in their own areas and they have the strategies, the legislation and the sector deals that are working for them and helping them to get to the point where they need to be. The Bill is very sector-specific, and it works for nuclear. I agree with Tom that, if and when it gets to that stage, it can be rolled out further. If you look at this in terms of the nuclear energy system, it works, and it is okay to look at each one in silo while having a holistic view of how all energy systems work together to get us to net zero.
Anthony Browne
Q
Tom Greatrex: This is a really important part of it. We have had policy under successive Governments for a while now for new nuclear capacity. It should not be a surprise to anyone that our current fleet is coming towards the end of its generating life, even after life extensions. The barrier that has existed to a number of different projects that were cited in the Second Reading debate, for example, has been about the financing regime, given the long lead time to develop an asset that then lasts for a very long time. So this is the biggest single thing.
I think that what needs to go alongside it—to be fair to the Government, we have seen this in recent times—is a commitment in words of the need for nuclear to be part of that future mix. All those things help to give investors, potential investors and developers confidence that this decision will not be changed on a whim. That clarity of purpose is important. The financing framework has been the thing that has scuppered various projects, and I think it will be vital in getting our capacity levels back up again.
Anthony Browne
Q
Rebecca Groundwater: This model provides certainty, and I know that the supply chain needs that certainty. We have been speaking to our members, and we engage with them. We know that they are diversifying out of energy. They are just not sure, despite what is needed, where the actual pipeline of projects coming down is from. They are not entirely sure what to go into. A lot of work has been done around the nuclear sector and with the supply chain. It is there and it is viable, and this commitment towards investment, and showcasing that it is seen as part of reaching net zero and part of that commitment to getting there, provides the stability for the industry to commit properly to it and to drive not just the local capability but the export capability, which UK businesses are very good at doing. I think this is a very welcome piece that we can move forward with.
Anthony Browne
Q
Tom Thackeray: I think this is a really important step for the nuclear industry and could establish our credentials as world leaders once again. From the business customer side of this, obviously, the bulk of the CBI’s membership are people who are concerned about energy from an energy bill perspective, and they are all setting net zero targets for their own operations. That is not going to be achieved unless we decarbonise the energy supply, and that cannot be achieved unless we have the roll-out of nuclear over the years ahead, and in quick time. From the point of view of UK credibility towards net zero and business leading the way generally, outside and inside the nuclear industry, it is a really important step.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tom Greatrex: I am sorry, but you cut out slightly. I think you were referring to clause 1 and designated companies, but I missed the question.
Matthew Pennycook
Sorry, Tom. From what you have seen, is there enough detail and clarity in the Bill about who designates a nuclear company and whether that is appropriate, and is there enough in there to be clear about whether we are designating the appropriate type of company?
Tom Greatrex: Thank you; I understand the question now. The detail of the designation process is set out in subsection (3) of clause 1, on procedure. I am not absolutely sure that it necessarily gives the full, detailed approach to the designation and who the designation will be of. As this is a framework Bill, we work on the assumption that the detail of that will be set out in regulations subsequently. We are quite comfortable with that being the approach. The broad principle is set out in the Bill, and I think that gives us enough to go on for now.
Rebecca Groundwater: The transparency piece and the openness of the process was mentioned by our members, but the assumption is that the detail will follow.
Tom Thackeray: I don’t think we have picked up strong views from our membership worrying about the level of detail in the Bill at present. I note from the previous comments that political statements and backing are really important in this industry, and making sure there is no ambiguity around the backing that the Government provide. Perhaps that leads us to a decision on who should do the designating, with Secretary of State-level backing for it. We can take further soundings from members on that.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tom Thackeray: I think we are comfortable that the Climate Change Committee’s analysis in the balance pathway is a reasonable assumption. We think nuclear will be a strong part of the energy mix in the years ahead. Obviously, we will need a much bigger electricity capacity up to 2050. As we learn more about the process and the cost of technology starts to drop, there might be slight adjusting of those assumptions in years ahead, but at the moment we do not diverge markedly from what the CCC has said.
Rebecca Groundwater: We are aligned with the CCC report. I have nothing further to add.
Tom Greatrex: It is important to underline that the CCC scenario is for 2035 and towards the sixth carbon budget. I think it is broadly in the right area. The 2050 net zero modelling that was published alongside the energy White Paper has a broader range to 2050. We have to bear in mind, looking beyond 2035 towards 2050 and net zero overall, that the overall proportion of our energy that will come from electricity will be high. It is reasonable to assume that we will be beyond 10 GW by 2050, although 10 GW by 2035 is probably the right ballpark figure.
Virginia Crosbie
Q
Rebecca Groundwater: I would go back to that stability and the pipeline of opportunities that are viable. The supply chain is ready and equipped with the people, skills and capability. It is world class. We have a brilliant energy sector here in the UK. In the market forces piece, it is unclear which one will take the lead out of all the technologies. It has caused uncertainty, and that is not what the supply chain needs. When we talk about the supply chain, we are talking about the breadth of it. Each organisation has different needs, but they need that investment piece; they need to know where to upskill and when; they need to know the timescales.
That is why this legislation going through quite quickly is helpful, because it showcases that decisions can be made now to drive forward investment in what is needed. That ongoing dialogue and conversation—the message, “This is serious, and we’re taking it forward,”—will give that stability and the ability to the financial markets to come in. We know they are talking about the sustainability goals and we know that parts of the supply chain are struggling with how to implement them and what that will mean for them, depending on their size. That wider conversation now needs to start to break down a little, so that we are looking at how that impacts each of the different sectors. That way, we can drive it forward and bring it all together.
Tom Greatrex: All the things you mentioned have been important, significant and welcome for the sector over the last period. This legislation is key, as I mentioned previously. As for what else we need, we know that development of the taxonomy is ongoing—the Treasury has an expert group leading on that. It is important that the taxonomy is objective and avoids some of the mess the Europe-level taxonomy has managed to get into, in terms of setting a framework for investment in infrastructure that will contribute to a low-carbon future and to net zero. The requirement will be to pace delivery of agreements, to enable projects to go forward—for example, negotiations are ongoing between EDF and Government on Sizewell C, although that goes beyond the scope of the Bill, and with others on the SMR programme; last week’s announcement was very welcome. A number of things are in the purview of Government to deliver—siting, for example. We need all those things to happen. If I were to characterise what is needed in one phrase, it would be: an appropriate sense of urgency, given the urgent situation of our current and future power mix requirements.
Tom Thackeray: I would echo many of the points the others made: detailing objective, sustainable finance taxonomy for the UK including nuclear will be really important over the next few years. More holistically, there is the extent to which the Government can build out their export and skills strategy, taking advantage of the technology developments we are making in a lot of the clean areas. I have a slight concern, not in the nuclear sector but potentially in other green economy areas, that there will be a squeeze on the labour market, with multiple industries going after the same labour pools, which will probably put a brake on our capacity. We need to think really strategically about some of that stuff.
You invited general comments about the 10-point plan. In some areas, there is a need to detail the routes to market for things like the hydrogen economy. That goes back the points the other Tom made about pace of delivery and urgency. However, having just come back from Glasgow, I think it really hit home how far advanced the UK is in some of these plans compared with others. We can always ask for more, but I think we are genuinely world leading in a lot of these areas.
Virginia Crosbie
Q
Tom Thackeray: I think it will be a huge opportunity, particularly if we generate those fleet opportunities in the year ahead. One of the great risks of not moving ahead with the RAB model straightaway is that you lose supply chain capacity, you lose innovation, and you lose the skills you have in the supply chain. There is a fantastic opportunity to build out an industrial strategy approach around the supply chain that we built up through Hinkley and will continue through Sizewell C, and to look at how we can use that in international markets as well. In addition to that, we have the exciting developments around small modular reactors, where UK-developed technology is exciting clients around the world. That will obviously be a huge part of the UK’s potential in the years ahead.
Rebecca Groundwater: I agree. I think this helps to anchor the UK as a model on which the expert piece really comes into play. We have been mapping where the proposed capacity is coming from, looking at new build projects from 2021 to 2080. With the RAB model, if this goes ahead and everything falls into place, we will be one of the top investors in nuclear. That allows us to then export that to the other countries that are coming up behind us. If you want, I can pass on the data that we have from our members on the international market piece.
Tom Greatrex: I underline the point that this mechanism will enable projects to happen. When projects happen, you have a supply chain that is engaged. Just think about some of the announcements made in the run-up to and in Glasgow over the last couple of weeks from other places—France, Canada, the USA and Japan—in terms of restarting. There is a whole load of potential opportunities there. If the UK is ahead on developing and delivering through its supply chain, those export opportunities become real. I echo the point that the other Tom made: if we leave it and do not do it, the danger is that those opportunities will be lost.
Virginia Crosbie
Q
Tom Greatrex: There is a distinction to be made between the technology. Sizewell C is obviously effectively a Franco-German technology by origin, and the amount of UK content in the supply chain at Hinkley is about 65%. That is likely to increase if Sizewell goes ahead. One of the opportunities that a RAB model opens up is interest from a greater pool of investors because of the way in which the returns will accrue. People will have mentioned, I am sure, long-term infrastructure investors, pension funds and various others, who use and have used RAB models in other infrastructure that they have been investors in, and have made it clear that they are interested in potentially doing that with nuclear. It broadens the scope of investment, which may then have some impact in terms of where some of the other financial stakeholders that you alluded to in your question are.
Rebecca Groundwater: Some of our members feel that the RAB model provides more opportunity for the UK supply chain content to increase. With investment coming in, there may be greater options for the supply chain.
Tom Thackeray: I echo the points already made, and note that we have a great history of private investment in infrastructure. Deployment of the RAB in other infrastructure assets has been hugely successful, and the examples are well known. That means that we have a mature investor base here in the UK, who are looking at other opportunities to spend their money. The opportunity to invest in environmental, social and governance is growing. Providing that opportunity in nuclear through the RAB model is a welcome next step.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Mycle Schneider, Professor Stephen Thomas and Doug Parr gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Mycle Schneider: Hi there. This is Mycle Schneider. I am an independent analyst and consultant on energy and nuclear policy based in Paris. I am the co-ordinator and publisher of the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report, and it is in that capacity that Members have invited me. Thank you very much for the opportunity.
For people who are not familiar with the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, it is a multi-indicator analysis that is elaborated annually by an international team of interdisciplinary experts that I have co-ordinated since 2007. The 2021 edition had a dozen researchers from a number of quite outstanding think-tanks and research institutions, including the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Chatham House, the Technical University of Berlin, the University of British Columbia, Nagasaki University and so on—just to give a quick overview.
The Chair
Thank you very much. We can also hear from Professor Stephen Thomas. Doug Parr will join us when he can. Professor Thomas, would you like to introduce yourself?
Professor Thomas: My name is Stephen Thomas. I am emeritus professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich in London. For the past 40-plus years, I have been an independent energy policy analyst, first at Sussex University and more recently at Greenwich University.
Alan Brown
Q
Mycle Schneider: Thank you for the question. I believe that if we are talking about the climate change emergency, it implies two things: to be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible and at the largest rate—that is the combination of effectiveness in terms of quantity and time. If we spend, whether it is a pound, a euro or a dollar, we have to see which options give us results that are large and fast.
If we are looking to nuclear power as an option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is pretty much clear today that the options that are available, whether it is efficiency or non-hydro renewables, are more climate efficient than nuclear. That is not only because, if you look at the cost estimates from institutions such as Lazard bank, about a quarter of the cost is needed to generate electricity by solar and wind, for example, compared with nuclear. It is also about five times slower to implement than other options. Again, I am referring essentially to efficiency and newer renewables. Actually, what we hear about possible investment over the longer term will, if ever, provide these services only in the longer term. That means beyond 2030, and far beyond that for some of the options we are talking about. In my opinion, that is much too slow.
The Chair
Stephen, do you have any comments on that?
Professor Thomas: Yes, I would like to pick up on the point about the need for reliable baseload plant. I can see the intuitive logic of that, but the National Grid’s scenarios—I trust the National Grid more than others on what it takes to run a reliable grid—say nothing about reliable baseload plant being needed. It has three scenarios to reach net zero by 2050, and in only one is Sizewell C required; the others do not require it. It seems entirely comfortable with the availability and cost of batteries. If National Grid does not see the need, I am not sure why I would. It is a non-sequitur that you need baseload plants.
Clearly, there is a baseload—in other words, a level of demand that we never go below—but I do not see the reason why we would need a dedicated set of plants to meet that baseload. It is like saying, if you have a factory that operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, you need a set of workers that will work seven days a week, 24 hours a day. It is simply a non-sequitur.
Alan Brown
Q
Professor Thomas: It is not the right technology. Both renewables and nuclear power are not flexible options. Nuclear power only makes any sense—if it makes any sense at all—if it is operated round the clock, with baseload at the maximum level it can work at. If the wind is not blowing, there is nothing you can do with a nuclear power plant to fill in the gap. Clearly, whichever way you go, nuclear or renewables, you will need flexible plants, which will probably be batteries and perhaps some demand-side response, to fill in those gaps. The worst thing of all would be to mix two inflexible sources, because you will get a time when nuclear is not available and renewables are not available, and then you will be in much worse trouble.
Mycle Schneider: There is this myth about nuclear power providing electricity 24/7. We have done a very detailed analysis of the French nuclear fleet for 2019—the year before covid—and it turned out that, basically, when the operator, EDF, starts an outage for maintenance and refuelling, it entirely loses control over the date and time it restarts. There are cases where there are 40 versions for the restart date and time. That does not really indicate that this is a 24/7 electricity-generating source. On the contrary, it means that even if we stick to the example of 40 revised dates and times, five of those were in the last 24 hours of that period. So not even 24 hours ahead was it possible for EDF to predict when 1,300 MW would be available to the grid or not. On the other hand, I think the whole concept of baseload is flying out of the window. As Stephen has said, what we need is flexibility. If we build up solar and wind massively, it means that a lot of that so-called baseload is already covered by those sources. It therefore becomes a competitive environment for certain times during the year and for certain times during the day. We need to fill in the gaps.
As the court of accounts has shown in its sensitivity analysis of the costs of nuclear power, the highest sensitivity is the productivity of the nuclear power plants. If the production levels go down, you increase costs significantly. We have seen over the past few years in France, but also obviously in the UK, lower production rates and therefore increased costs. That means that these reactors have become much less reliable. We have calculated that the average increase in 2019 over the expected outage time was 44%. It can be a planned outage of a week, and it turns out to be six months. That is not an exaggeration, we have cases like that.
Alan Brown
Q
Mycle Schneider: I think I will pass that one on to my English-based colleagues who are better suited to answer.
Doug Parr: There are certainly opportunities in tidal energy, and, at a minimum, I would hope that the Government would seek to pursue them in the next renewable auction round. I think there are a variety of technologies, certainly including tidal and geothermal. In terms of the subject of the Bill, nuclear energy is seen to be always on, but the overall competition for the grid is going to be between dispatchable and available power, which ideally should be flexible as well, and the provision of storage from cheap renewable power. In that sense, we are talking about green hydrogen, alongside these other renewable sources; but in terms of my personal preference, yes, I would certainly want to see tidal as part of the mix.
Professor Thomas: We cannot prejudge whether tidal would be a useful technology until we have tried it out. We can look at nuclear and see that costs have gone up rather than down, and on the other hand we can look at offshore wind, and see that five years ago the cost was £140 a megawatt-hour and now we are down to £40 a megawatt-hour. I think it is an option that we need to test. Whether it will be a success, I do not know; we cannot judge that in advance. If it was a guaranteed certainty, I guess we would have done it, but we must try out all these options.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Mycle Schneider: Yes, I can briefly comment. I think you are referring to the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. It had a similar scheme to RAB, which basically allowed it to pass on cost overruns to electricity customers. Construction started in 2013. Westinghouse was the technology provider. The plants were supposed to come online in 2017. By 2017, the cost estimate had increased by 75%, and I believe that there were nine rate increases for ratepayers up to that point. Finally, in July 2017 the construction was abandoned. Obviously, this was one of the consequences of the fact that Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy, and one of the main reasons for that was the V.C. Summer AP1000 project.
It might be interesting for the Committee to spend some time studying this case because it also involved some very problematic criminal activity. The federal grand jury has charged the former senior vice-president of Westinghouse Electric Company, Jeffrey A. Benjamin, for his role in failing to report accurately the status of the construction of these nuclear sites. It is worth noting that he served as senior vice-president for new plans and major projects, and was therefore directly responsible for all new projects worldwide for Westinghouse during the period of the V.C. Summer project. He has been charged in a federal indictment with 16 felony counts,
“including conspiracy, wire fraud, securities fraud, and causing a publicly-traded company to keep a false record.”
That is a quote from the Justice Department. He is only one of four top managers who had criminal charges filed against them in this affair. The former chief executive officer of SCANA, the utility that was building the plant, pleaded guilty to federal felony charges and was sentenced to two years in jail, which will start in December. The case had major implications.
Obviously, the ratepayer is left with the ruins of concrete and steel, and with no kilowatt-hours. Apparently, reportedly this affair is not over. It has cost the ratepayers billions, and reportedly it will cost more over the 20 years to come.
The Chair
A number of Members want to ask questions, so could we keep them as short as possible?
Professor Thomas: I wanted to add that what marked out the Summer project and a similar project in Georgia from those in all other states of the United States was that they were allowed to recover money from consumers before completion of the plant. That is a central feature of the RAB proposal. The Summer experience shows clearly the folly of making consumers pay for a plant before it is complete.
We have to be careful with the idea that we need to take measures to prevent unfinished plants from being abandoned. We have a very good example in Britain in the Dungeness B plant: it took 24 years to get from start of construction to commercial operation, and over its 32 years of operating life, its availability was well below 50%. It is very clear that the plant should have been abandoned before it was completed.
The Chair
Doug, do you have any comments?
Doug Parr: I am not sure that I have much to add. I read that the Summer plant added 18% to bill payers’ bills in South Carolina at one point, which is obviously a very considerable amount. I am not saying that those numbers are translatable to the UK context. It chose to expose the consumer to those considerable risks.
The Government really need some kind of independent evidence base for their judgments if they are going to enter bilateral negotiations with a plant builder who, on the basis of the plant builder’s word, can expose consumers to very considerable risks; Dr Schneider alluded to that. We see that with the RAB mechanism, the Government have a bilateral negotiation mechanism, and those do not have a happy history in almost any sector, including for the various networks. I am not quite sure how you establish that.
One thing that has been missing from nuclear policy as it applies to renewables and other mechanisms, such as the capacity mechanism, is the element of competition. The information asymmetry is potentially very strong. It gives a lot of cards to the nuclear seller—the nuclear provider—without giving the Government any backstop with regard to understanding what is going on. When there is competition via a reverse auction of the kind that we find in renewables, you factor those risks out, but consistently over the years—decades, in fact—this kind of discipline has not been applied to nuclear policy. With the RAB-type mechanism, those risks potentially land on the bill payer, not the provider of nuclear stations.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Doug Parr: I am not sure that I am across the detail enough to give a good answer to that one, I’m afraid. I would need to come back to the Committee on that, if that is all right.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Professor Thomas: I think the problem is not the need for a special administrative regime to rescue things if it all goes badly wrong in the construction phase. I think the problem is the RAB mechanism that is putting consumers’ money at risk, and if we look at the impact assessment, we are looking at a plant that will not be completed until something like 2037 to 2041, so I will be paying into this plant for quite a long time and I probably will not live long enough to see any power from it. The special administrative regime is a way to try to solve a problem that is better solved by simply not using this RAB mechanism.
Anthony Browne
Q
Doug Parr: I do not think I have ever made any secret of the fact that there are attendant risks that come with nuclear that do not apply to other forms of zero-carbon and low-carbon generation. What I would ask, in the light of the climate crisis—it is not an insignificant challenge that you have put there—is why UK Governments of all colours have continued to emphasise nuclear policy over and above other ways of cutting emissions. For example, the last time I saw figures on Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy civil servants and where they were working, there were more people working on nuclear than on renewables and clean building heat put together, so when it came to two of the big-ticket items that are going to be absolutely essential—lots of renewable power and lots of clean heat for buildings—there were fewer civil servants working on those than on nuclear.
Nuclear is a bit-part player in this. All sensible, cost-effective models show that nuclear will not be a big piece of the pie, in terms of delivering what we need to deliver, and there are considerable problems with delivering heat, as members of the Committee will know. There are some substantial issues with delivering the amount of renewable power that we need, yet what we have is a Bill for delivering nuclear, and more civil servants working on it than on other things. I emphasise that this is a distortion that has been in place over years, and it is becoming quite problematic, because every time people are working on nuclear and not working on these other things—not putting energy and money into other things—we lose our ability to deliver what we need to deliver.
Anthony Browne
Q
Mycle Schneider: The question has to be: if I spend money today, what is the most climate-effective option that is available? There is absolutely no doubt, wherever it is, that it is impossible today to build a new nuclear plant as quickly as many other options, and at a cost that is competitive. Every dollar, euro or pound put into new nuclear is making the climate crisis worse. There is no doubt about that; it is very clear. It is straightforward. Existing nuclear power plants are a bit of another story, because they are there.
Anthony Browne
Q
Mycle Schneider: That is their problem. We have a very precise view about what nuclear power has actually delivered. Nuclear power is not a new technology. It was 70 years ago that construction started on the first nuclear power reactor. We have long experience, but the strange thing is that the nuclear industry always claims a “first of its kind” situation. It is surprising because whether it is Olkiluoto—an EPR in Finland—Flamanville in France or Hinkley Point C, every time the industry claims it is the first of a kind. How many times can it do that? We see that each time, costs skyrocket and the nuclear industry does not deliver.
By the way, the nuclear industry is not delivering on existing reactors, either. It is not a coincidence that Standard and Poor’s downrated EDF Energy to junk last year. For me, as an outside observer, that is a strange situation. Basically, the business as it is run by EFD Energy is judged by the credit rating agencies as not investment grade. In fact, the EDF Group has been downgraded as well. It is still investment grade, but only because they get additional notches from extraordinary state support. The RAB scheme suggests bringing down financing costs—making borrowed money cheaper—but the way EDF runs its business is judged to be so bad by credit rating agencies that it is rated non-investment grade.
All of those things have to be taken into account, and the question for me—having listened to much of the industry’s presentations today—is about how incredibly confident it is about what it will deliver in the future, when what it has delivered in the past is way off its own targets.
Anthony Browne
You are based in Paris and 70% of France’s electricity comes from nuclear. France has consistently lower carbon dioxide emissions per capita than the UK. Presumably you agree that that is because of the size of its nuclear sector.
Mycle Schneider: Of course that is a substantial part of it, at this point. The problem is that in 2020 the production of nuclear power was the lowest it had been in 17 years, and the share of nuclear power in the French system was at its lowest since 1985. That does not sound like a very reliable source of electricity. Basically, the French reactors were down to zero production for 115 days in 2020. That means that for every two reactors you need one in reserve, because they do not generate power for a big part of the year.
Do not forget that France has created a very distorted energy system. The peak load in the winter is historically more than 100 GW, while the lowest load day is about 30 GW. To give you an idea, Germany is about 80 GW at the peak, but it has 20 million more people. France has distorted the system with electric space heating.
The nuclear sector provides just over 60 GW, and those 60 GW are never all available. So what happens in the winter is that France often imports power from Germany. As we know, quite a bit of that peak power from Germany is coal, so one has to look at the carbon footprint and not only the grand gigawatt-hour.
The Chair
Order. We are drifting a little from the scope of the Bill. Can we get back to questions that relate to the Bill, please?
Mark Jenkinson
Q
Professor Thomas: As I said, I do not think there is a case for the need for firm baseload power. If the National Grid Company does not think there is a need for it, who are we to tell it that it does not know how to operate a system reliably?
Mark Jenkinson
Q
Professor Thomas: I would trust the National Grid Company over the Climate Change Committee on matters of reliability of the grid.
Mark Jenkinson
Q
Professor Thomas: Yes, I am saying that it is wrong. If the National Grid Company does not say that there is a need for firm baseload power, I will trust it. If that means that the Climate Change Committee is wrong, so be it.
Mark Jenkinson
Q
Doug Parr: There is a difference between firm and baseload. We absolutely need firm power because there will be spells when we do not have much wind and solar. That is where there is a need for firm power, and I do not believe that anybody who thinks about it for a moment would dispute that. The question is what forms that. As I hinted earlier, on the question about where nuclear fits in the overall system to deliver a cost-effective and secure system, it is now a race between cost-effective storage of renewable power on the one hand and something like nuclear on the other. We can see that the existing deployment of green hydrogen and the money that is flowing into it will bring that cost down sharply. The Climate Change Committee has already assumed that there will be cost reductions. How fast they will go is still not certain, but we know that those costs will come down pretty quickly.
Mark Jenkinson
Q
Doug Parr: No, we are not. We are saying that there needs to be a storable medium for energy, and that is the gas that I would be talking about. There needs to be a firm dispatchable form of power, and that is what it is, because there will be times when there will be an excess of renewable power, which will be convertible. In the first instance, it will be exportable. Then it becomes importable, and usable in the form of stored energy. I take the point about what the committee says is necessary for system security, but as Steve said, the National Grid does not see that as being baseload; it is about something that can be flexible to accommodate the other aspects of the system, and it needs to be looked at as a system.
Mark Jenkinson
I just want to pick up on hydrogen specifically, because we heard that it is incredibly inefficient.
The Chair
Order. Mark, I am going to move on. There are two more people, and you have had a long time. I call Kirsty Blackman.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Q
Doug Parr: I think we need to really get a shift on with deploying renewables as fast as possible. I know it is said that we are already deploying them. Sure, but are we deploying them at the speed we need to? I think the answer is no. We need to get a move on with that. That in itself will not take up a lot of money but, as the previous conversation alluded to, there need to be alterations to the electrical system that allow that to be best accommodated. That is where some of the money goes.
We also need much greater interconnection with the continent, because that allows the flows to be balanced much more easily, and we definitely need a shedload of money going into making our buildings and appliances more efficient, because the best and most secure energy is the stuff that you do not need. Those can all be done at scale in the 2020s, so well before Sizewell will ever get going.
Professor Thomas: I do not think that you can possibly argue that nuclear is the best option to pursue. As Doug said, energy efficiency can be implemented very quickly, and it has the double pay-off that, whereas expensive new power sources will increase bills, energy efficiency measures will reduce both emissions and bills. It will have a welfare pay-off for low-income consumers as well as reducing our carbon emissions.
Mycle Schneider: Most of it has been said. We need to schedule priorities by availability and cost. The combination of time and cost together makes climate effectiveness.
Kirsty Blackman
Q
Doug Parr: I would not be, no.
Kirsty Blackman
Q
Doug Parr: Yes. I have always been very clear that there are particular hazards around new nuclear developments, whether it is waste, the terrorist threat, what to do with them or security issues. That is why I think, as a society, it is worth avoiding those hazards and, if necessary, paying a bit more. In practice, there are models out there by, for example, Imperial College that say that no more new nuclear is on the cost-effective pathway, given the cost of renewables. Theoretically, I can say that. In practice, I am not sure that is the situation we are facing.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
“to enable a final investment decision for a large-scale nuclear project in this Parliament, and the government remains in active negotiations with EDF over the Sizewell C project.”
What is your understanding of what that means and can you comment on potentially the use of that £1.7 billion as it relates to the RAB funding mechanism? It is a very different two sets of scenarios, if we are talking about whether that £1.7 billion is for a buy-out of the CGN minority stake or potentially put in as part of a pot of money alongside the funds generated from RAB.
Professor Thomas: If we go back to the 2016 agreement, CGN agreed to take a third of the Hinkley Point C project: the construction and the operation of the plant. It agreed to take 20% of the Sizewell B/C project up to final investment decision. It has an option to take 20% of the construction and operation of the plant if it goes ahead and for Bradwell, there is the 66% of CGN and 33% of EDF. EDF and CGN have spent about £0.5 billion developing the plans to the point they have reached so far. Let us say it is going to take another £0.5 billion to get to final investment decision—that is at the most. So £1.7 billion seems a bit too much for that. The wording of the £1.7 billion is very vague. Some people have assumed it will be an 8.5% stake, or whatever £1.7 billion works out as.
In terms of how you would get CGN out of Sizewell C, I think it is really dependent on what happens to Bradwell B. It is clear that CGN’s presence in the UK is for only two reasons. First, to build the Bradwell B plant, and the price for that is its involvement in Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C. The other is to get the British safety regulator’s endorsement of its technology. If it is not going to be allowed to build Bradwell B, I cannot see why on earth it would be interested in putting money into Sizewell C. It is not CGN’s technology, it would provide nothing and it would not be particularly profitable. So if Bradwell B is abandoned, the Sizewell C CGN problem will solve itself. Can you briefly repeat me the gist of the second part of your question?
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Professor Thomas: The CGN EDF consortium have spent about £0.5 billion so far, and they have some more money to spend to get to the final investment decision. They would then expect to sell that work to the company that actually builds and operates the plants, so they would get their money back. If Sizewell C goes ahead, it is sort of alone. It seems to make more sense to see it as a stake in the plant, which might encourage institutional investors to go in. If they saw Government involvement, they might think that it will probably not be allowed to collapse, but it is up to the Government to provide a bit more clarity about what they expect the £1.7 billion to do.
Alan Brown
Q
Professor Thomas: I think there is a lot of missing detail in the RAB proposal, and one of the biggest elements of missing detail is how much the surcharge for consumers will be during the construction phase. The Government have said that it will be a maximum of about £10 per year per consumer. That makes no sense, because it would yield about £6 billion. In the context of a project that the Government said would cost between £24 billion and £40 billion, plus financing costs, £6 billion is a nice little present, but it will not be much of a game-changer. We need to see much more clarity about what that cost will be, because if it is to make a big change to the cost of power from Sizewell C, it has to be quite a significant surcharge. We also need to include that in the price of power. At the moment, we are talking about £60 per megawatt-hour and completely forgetting the £6 billion, or however much it will be, that consumers will put in during the construction phase.
In terms of what happens if the plant has to close early, there is a big problem with decommissioning. Decommissioning funds work on the basis of discounted cash flow—in other words, a liability that falls due in 50 years. You have to have enough money in place now, plus the interest it would earn for 50 years, to pay off the debt. If the plant closes early, you do not earn all that income and you have to bring forward the process of decommissioning, so there will be a big hole in the decommissioning funds.
I remind members of the Committee that the decommissioning funds that we have in the UK have continually failed. Consumers have paid three or four times over, only for the money to disappear and not be available for decommissioning. Decommissioning is a very serious issue. It appears to disappear because of the belief that you can invest a sum of money at 2.5% or 3%, in real terms, for 100 years. That is not the case, I am afraid—not on the historical evidence.
Alan Brown
Q
Professor Thomas: The only people who can pay are taxpayers. If the company goes bust, unless you have powers to pursue the companies back to their parents, and the parents are still there to pay off, you will be left with the taxpayers. We are talking about a process that happens something like 100 or 120 years after the plant starts up. The chances of an entity that owns the plant at the start still being around in 120 years’ time seems to be very slight, so I do not think that you will be able to pursue companies and you will end up with taxpayers having to foot the bill, as is the case with the Magnox plants now—that is being funded entirely by taxpayers.
Alan Brown
Q
Professor Thomas: That is a fairly rash decision, to go for 60 years. There are plants that are just about reaching their 50th birthday, but a lot of plants have retired well before that, so 35 years—as for Hinkley Point—is the very maximum I would want to go to.
The Chair
Doug, did you want to come in on that?
Doug Parr: Only as a rejoinder to what Stephen said about the risk of underperformance, if not early closure. Remember that the EPR that was constructed in Taishan is offline at the moment, because of a fuel issue. It has been offline for about three months, I think, and that is only three years into its operation. Underperformance, if not early closure, is a tangible issue even with that model of reactor.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. Thank you very much for attending. That brings us to the end of our oral evidence session today. The Committee will meet again on Thursday to begin line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, meeting at 11.30 am in Committee Room 11.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)
Subsidy Control Bill (Tenth sitting)
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 70, page 40, line 12, at end insert—
“(c) the Welsh Ministers,
(d) the Scottish Ministers, or
(e) a Northern Ireland department;”.
This amendment intends that devolved administrations are included as interested parties regarding calling in of subsidy decisions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 71, in clause 70, page 40, line 12, at end insert—
“(c) the Scottish Ministers,
(d) the Welsh Ministers, or
(e) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.”
This amendment would include the Devolved Administrations within the definition of an interested party.
Kirsty Blackman
Thank you, Ms Nokes, for your forbearance in continuing to chair these sittings for us; we appreciate it.
It strikes me that there are three really important things in the Bill. The first question is this. What is a subsidy, and when can and cannot a subsidy be awarded? Actually, we have had not much disagreement across the Committee about what constitutes the answers to those points. The second question, which we have raised a number of concerns about, is this. How do we know what has been awarded? Specifically, we have raised a number of issues about transparency, how transparency will work and whether the transparency measures being suggested are adequate. The third question is how subsidy decisions can be challenged. The Bill and this system, the subsidy control regime, will not work if there is not a mechanism for a challenge to be made. That seems to me to be the third of those three important areas.
We have suggested amendment 23, which is specifically about the definition of interested parties. The Bill says that “interested party” means
“a person whose interests may be affected by the giving of the subsidy or the making of the subsidy scheme in respect of which the application under subsection (1) is made, or…the Secretary of State”.
The Minister has been clear a number of times that being too prescriptive about some things and including too many things risks suggesting that we are not including others. If the measure includes a, b and c, potentially an imaginary d would be excluded, because it explicitly says a, b and c.
The legislation talks about “interested parties” as those people who have been affected, but it also includes the Secretary of State, so presumably, in the Government’s eyes, the Secretary of State has a specific role whether or not he or she has an interest or the Government have an interest in whatever it is that has been subsidised. The Secretary of State has the ability to request a call-in whether or not they have an interest. The Minister has spoken at some length—indeed, a number of people have—about the asymmetry of the legislatures in the UK, and there is an asymmetry of legislatures. Westminster has reserved powers and, as we have seen in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and various other power grabs, the ability to override some of the devolved competencies. We are not disagreeing that there is an asymmetry, but there is a requirement and a recognition that we have devolved legislatures that have a very important role to play in not just the economic development but the wellbeing of their citizens under whatever the devolved competencies are.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady not defining that exactly as the legislation is set out? The devolved legislatures have an important role to play. Therefore they are an interested party. That is the point; it does not need to be set out specifically.
Kirsty Blackman
In that case, it does not need to be set out specifically that the Secretary of State is an interested party. There would be no need to include the Secretary of State if the Bill applied equally to any of the devolved legislatures whether or not they had a direct interest or whether or not their interests would be affected. It may be the case that the Scottish Parliament’s or the Scottish Government’s interests are not affected by something but that the interests of a significant number of businesses in Scotland are affected, in which case it would be completely reasonable for the Scottish Government or Scottish Ministers to be included, as we have suggested in the amendment; we have also referred to Welsh Ministers and “a Northern Ireland department”. The aim is specifically to catch the issue that has just been made clear. Sometimes the devolved institutions will not have a direct interest that affects the operation of their Parliament, but they might have an interest on behalf of the wellbeing of their citizens or the economic development of the places they represent. Subsection (7)(a), which defines interested parties, does not go far enough to allow those institutions to raise concerns about potential issues. If the concern does not affect them directly, it seems they are excluded from raising it.
I understand the point made earlier by the Minister about the Competition Appeal Tribunal and how it may define interested parties, but there is a definition of interested parties in the Bill. I feel it is too narrow to include other interested parties such as Scottish Ministers, unless they are directly affected.
Legislatures need to be responsible. We need to take action on behalf of our citizens, and to be able to take that action. Given that these institutions are democratically elected and there have been votes that resulted in the creation of the institutions, we must recognise that the devolved legislatures have a stake and a responsibility—a place to fill in supporting their constituents. This is not about trying to say that the Scottish Government are better than the Westminster Government—I mean, they are, obviously, but the amendment is not about fighting to change the power structure of the UK. It would simply allow Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland Department to take their place and be able to exercise their right to protect the people, the businesses and the countries they are elected to represent.
If the term “interested parties” covers everybody, including those who have an indirect interest, then it does not make sense to include the Secretary of State in the definition. However, if the term “interested parties” does not include Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland Department, we have a really big problem. This is not how devolution is intended to work; it is intended that those institutions can support their constituents.
I would appreciate it if the Minister will look at the issue. It is likely I will consider pressing the amendment, because it is such an important issue. As I said, this is one of the three most important parts of the Bill. The devolved legislatures absolutely should have the right to have subsidy decisions called in. This is not a power that is going to be used every five minutes. It is not like anybody is going to be challenging the decisions or looking for assessments on a regular basis—that is not how it is going to work. If the UK Government are committed to levelling up and the principles in the Bill of looking at competition throughout the United Kingdom and the effects of subsidies, it is really important that the three devolved Administrations have this power.
Kevin Hollinrake
Does the way that the amendment is drafted not mean that Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland Department could interfere or be an interested party even though they had no interest? For example, a Scottish Minister could intervene in something that was happening in Wales, which has no relevance—they would have no interest at all. Is that the intention—that a Scottish Minister can intervene in a subsidy scheme in any part of the United Kingdom, even though it does not directly affect Scotland?
Kirsty Blackman
Yes, because that is the point of the Bill. The point of the legislation is to make sure that we do not have those subsidy races. As was made clear on Second Reading, Members want a situation in which there are not subsidy races and in which they can ensure that the best decisions are being taken for their area. If the hon. Gentleman, the local authority in his constituency or the Secretary of State felt that something in his constituency was being affected negatively because of the actions of the Scottish Government or the Northern Ireland Department in granting a subsidy, I would expect the Secretary of State to consider calling that in. If the hon. Gentleman made representations to the Secretary of State on behalf of organisations in his constituency that might not want to go through the process of employing lawyers to get it called in, but are genuinely affected, surely that is one reason why the Secretary of State may be included.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady makes my point for me. If something were affecting North Yorkshire, I would be an interested party already, because that is how it is defined.
Kirsty Blackman
No, the hon. Gentleman would not be an interested party, because the Bill states that an interested party is
“a person whose interests may be affected by the giving of the subsidy or the making of the subsidy scheme”.
The hon. Gentleman’s interests are themselves not affected. His constituents’ interests are affected—
Kirsty Blackman
It is not the same thing, and that is the point that I am making. That is why either the definition of an interested party needs to change, or we specifically include those people whose direct interests may not be affected but whose indirect interests—whose responsibilities towards their constituents and their country—are affected as a result. In such circumstances, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would not be an interested party. I cannot see how his interests possibly could be affected, going on the reading of the legislation, although his constituents’ interests would be affected. If that is how we want the measure to operate—which is how I would like it to operate—I would very much like it to operate in the way that he is suggests.
Kevin Hollinrake
My interests are my constituents’ interests, and vice versa, so why would my interests not be affected if my constituents’ interests were affected?
Kirsty Blackman
The Bill states:
“a person whose interests may be affected by the giving of the subsidy”.
The hon. Member’s interests would not be affected by the giving of the subsidy, his constituents’ interests would be. If the Minister, when he speaks, confirms that a Member’s interests cover all the interests of his constituents, can define the interests of the Scottish Government, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department or can say absolutely that, for example, a Northern Ireland Department’s interests cover the interests of businesses and constituents within its jurisdiction, I will be delighted that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is correct. That is what I would like it to say but, as drafted, that is not what the Bill says.
There is therefore a gap, an issue with not enough people being able to make that challenge and in those democratic institutions not having that right. As the Minister said, it is not a foregone conclusion that such things would go through, that the CAT would look at the subsidy decision and say, “Oh, the Secretary of State has referred this, so they are definitely correct and the subsidy is definitely wrong.” That is not how it would work. The CAT is an independent organisation and it will be making those decisions.
On the specific point about people who have the ability to refer subsidy decisions, however, I think that those people with indirect interests on behalf of their constituents or the areas that they represent should have the right to make that referral—and for the CAT to make the decision after that. Again, that will not lead to a significant increase in the number of challenges to come forward, but if the Government are committed to levelling up and to the Subsidy Control Bill regime working as it is intended to work, changes have to be made to the clause. Amendment 23 was the best way that I could see of making the changes to ensure that those interested parties with indirect parties would be able to fulfil adequately their roles to work on behalf of the people who elected them.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, who laid out some very strong arguments for amendment 23. I will speak briefly to amendment 71, which is very similar.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I appreciate the contributions of the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Feltham and Heston. As we have heard, the amendments are almost identical in effect, so I will discuss them together.
Who has standing to challenge subsidy decisions is an important question that we considered carefully when drafting the Bill. The definition of an interested party, which covers any person whose interests may be affected by the subsidy or scheme in question, is intentionally broad and in many instances could capture the devolved Administrations. As I said in relation to the previous amendment, the rule on standing in the clause is not intended to exclude any party whose interests may genuinely be affected by a subsidy.
None the less, I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is necessary to have some limit on who can bring a challenge, so that the CAT can dismiss various challenges, whether they are vexatious or not. That is necessary to ensure that useful subsidies are not held up without good reason. The absence of a list or further explanation is not intended to exclude any party whose interests may genuinely be affected by a subsidy. On the contrary, the broad definition gives the CAT the maximum discretion so that, whatever the facts of the case may be, it can deem the right people to be interested parties. Depending on the case, that could certainly include one of the devolved Administrations.
Opposition Members have suggested that because the Secretary of State has default standing to bring a challenge there is an unequal situation that prejudices the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is simply not right. The Secretary of State has not been designated an interested party to act in the interests of one part of the UK. It is therefore not necessary that there should be some sort of balance, with other actors also having default standing. This is a reserved policy area and, as such, the Secretary of State’s responsibilities and interests are UK wide.
The Secretary of State is always deemed an interested party so that they can challenge any subsidiary they feel would be incompatible with the subsidiary control framework and because, as a member of the UK Government, they are responsible for the compliance of subsidies granted in all parts of the UK with our international obligations. The Government expects that the Secretary of State would use this ability only in exceptional circumstances where, in their view, a subsidy would threaten the integrity of the subsidy control framework, which protects competition and investment within the UK and helps to meet our international obligations. It is just as likely that the Secretary of State would challenge a subsidy given by an English local authority that prejudiced a Scottish business, as it is that they would challenge a Welsh subsidy that prejudiced an English business.
The intention of the clause is to allow a default right to stand as an interested party to challenge subsidies, while reserving a specific role for the Secretary of State to oversee the whole system and ensure compliance with international agreements. It is not appropriate or necessary for any other public authority to have the same standing. I have talked a lot about devolved Administrations, but to cover the point made in the exchange between the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, an interested party could be any of those public authorities, including local councils or any awarding body. As we discussed in the previous group of amendments, that interest is wider than direct financial interest. For that reason, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister has not really answered the key question that would be helpful in order to ensure that interested parties are as broad as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton and I think it should be. Does a devolved Administration’s interests include indirect interests? Let us say that the Scottish Parliament was to come forward to the CAT and ask for something to be reviewed on the basis that it would affect seven businesses throughout Scotland. Is that included in the definition of persons of interest who may be affected? What if a number of organisations in their jurisdiction are potentially affected by a subsidy given? That subsidy may be given in Scotland; this is not necessarily an inter-nation argument. It could be that a local authority in Scotland gives a subsidy and the Scottish Government are not happy about it because it could negatively affect seven different businesses. Is that included? Is that covered by the definition of interested parties?
Paul Scully
Yes. I would say that is a direct interest rather than an indirect interest. Public authorities, including devolved Administrations, may be interested parties. That is why we are keeping the definition wide—because it includes their responsibilities as well as a direct interest for the public authority or the devolved Administration itself.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister has made the clarification to say that it includes responsibilities. Obviously, the devolved Administrations have responsibilities for lots of things in various areas. That is incredibly helpful. I still would like to see amendment 23 in the Bill and I would like to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Scully
The clause enables interested parties to apply to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, or the CAT, to challenge decisions by public authorities to give subsidies or make subsidy schemes. The CAT has the advantage of being a UK-wide tribunal with specialist expertise in competition and in hearing judicial reviews in the field of economic regulation. It is well regarded by practitioners and the Government’s consultation demonstrated strong support for its performing this role.
Any interested party who is aggrieved by a subsidy decision will be able to apply to the CAT to review that decision. The clause defines an interested party as any
“person whose interests may be affected”
by the decision in question. The Secretary of State is also explicitly defined as an interested party, which does not mean that the Government have the intention of challenging a large number of subsidy decisions by other public authorities. Instead, it provides a safety valve allowing the Secretary of State to challenge subsidy decisions that might harm competition and investment within the UK or cause concerns to be raised by one of the UK’s trading partners under the terms of our international agreements.
The clause provides that the CAT must apply judicial review principles when determining applications to review subsidy decisions, which means that the tribunal will determine whether the decision was lawful, including whether the requirements set out in the Bill have been met. The tribunal will not be capable of reviewing the merits or effectiveness of a subsidy or subsidy scheme.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. We have no further comments on the clause beyond what we raised on the amendments. We support clause 70 standing part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71
Time limits for applications under section 70
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 71, page 40, line 31, at beginning insert—
“Except where subsection (1A) applies,”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 75.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 75, in clause 71, page 40, line 33, at end insert—
“(1A) Where a public authority has not complied with its duties under section 33(1), an application to the Tribunal under section 70 in respect of a subsidy decision must be made by sending a notice of appeal before the end of six months beginning with the date on which it is established that the section 33(1) duty has not been complied with.”
This amendment provides for an extended period of challenge where a public duty has not complied with its section 33 duties.
Seema Malhotra
The clause amends the Competition Appeal Tribunal rules to establish the time limits for making an application to the CAT for a review of a subsidy control decision. Interested parties must send their notice of appeal to the CAT within one month of the relevant date. The tribunal may not extend the one-month time limit unless there are exceptional circumstances.
As we have already stated, we believe very strongly that public authorities should have a clearer statutory duty to upload full and accurate information to the subsidy database. Where a public authority fails to comply with that duty, there should be consequences. The regime requires a better incentive for public authorities to upload accurately and fully. Evidence from DWF, which I will not repeat at length again, revealed how many of the entries currently uploaded to the database are far from complete or accurate.
Amendments 75 and 74 would provide a statutory consequence where a public authority has not complied with its duty to upload information to the database, as set out in clause 33(1): namely, an extended challenge period of six months from the date on which it is established that the clause 33 duty has not been complied with. In our view, that would create a strong incentive for public authorities to upload information to the database promptly, comprehensively and accurately. Transparency is central to the new regime, and protecting it is at the heart of the amendments.
Paul Scully
Clause 71 sets out the time limits for an interested party to apply to the CAT for a review of a decision to grant a subsidy or make a subsidy scheme. It is important to strike a balance between allowing sufficient time for a subsidy scheme or award to be challenged and giving confidence to the subsidy beneficiary that the subsidy decision can no longer be challenged, and that they can make use of that subsidy.
The Government believe that the appropriate balance is the one-month limitation period, generally counted from the date on which the subsidy or subsidy scheme is published on the database. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston has tabled amendments to that general time limit, which we will discuss later. I understand that the amendments are intended to extend the period for challenging a subsidy when a public authority has not properly fulfilled its transparency obligations. It may be useful to begin by clarifying how the clause would work in cases where the transparency requirements are not met.
Clause 71 already provides a powerful incentive for public authorities to properly fulfil their transparency obligations. If they do not, there is no transparency date for the purpose of rule 98A subsection (2), so there is no limitation period for when an interested party can seek a review of the subsidy in the CAT. In other words, if there is a non-trivial failure to comply with the transparency obligations in clause 33, the subsidy or scheme could not just be challenged six months after it is made; it could potentially be challenged at any time.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments—I think he picked up on some of the issues that we were raising. He gave the example of a public authority not acting in line with its duties, meaning that those in receipt of a subsidy could end up waiting for longer. That could be administrative error, and nothing to do with the subsidy, but we would not know.
I think it is fair to say that the amendment is not perfect, but we wanted to make a general point about time limits, which we want to look at in the round, and about how the whole regime can work fairly. On this occasion, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 73, in clause 71, page 40, line 33, leave out “one month” and insert “three months”.
This amendment would extend the period for interested parties to submit an application for review of a subsidy to three months.
The amendment would extend to three months the period for interested parties to submit an application for review of a subsidy. We think that is extremely important, because as it stands, interested parties would have one month from the publication of a subsidy or scheme on the database, or from receiving requests for information from the public authority in respect of a subsidy or scheme, to bring a challenge before the CAT.
That is an extremely short timeframe. Uploads to the database could be made on July 22, for example, or on December 16, when we rise for recess. I do not want to suggest that there might be attempts to reduce opportunities for scrutiny and challenge by timing uploads to the database, but at the end of July, for example, there are school holidays, and even Parliament does not return until September. One month can be a very short time for scrutiny and challenge, especially at particular times of the year, and it is about what is chosen to be published and when.
Labour recognises the importance of giving subsidies legal certainty in this quicker, more flexible regime. However, given that public authorities will have six months or even a year to publish subsidies on the database, why will interested parties be given only one month to challenge them? Once the one-month period has elapsed, there will be no other routes for challenging subsidies and schemes. That means that if interested parties are not given the appropriate amount of time to consider new subsidies and schemes, damaging subsidies or schemes will face no risk of challenge. That seems extremely risky, and I hope the Minister recognises that.
Jonathan Branton, a lawyer at DWF, summarised this and said:
“I think one month is too short, because that requires people to be extremely alert about checking things.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 52, Q73.]
People can get busy and have other deadlines for two, three or four weeks. It seems to be an extraordinarily short time that may create inefficiencies in other areas, as people ask, “What subsidies have come out? How quickly should I be checking?” This is about making sure there is a fair, well-scrutinised and effective regime. We need to get the balance right between providing legal certainty and ensuring damaging subsidies can be effectively challenged. It feels as if the balance is not right at the moment in the context of this regime and how it is designed in the Bill.
We propose to correct the balance in amendment 73, which would give interested parties three months to bring a subsidy or scheme before the CAT. In doing so, there would be more time to consider subsidies and their effects. It would give interested parties and public authorities a fair chance to ensure a challenge can be brought, still within a limited amount of time, and the balance between that and legal certainty can be effective.
Paul Scully
The clause sets out the time limits in which the interested party must make an application to the CAT to challenge the subsidy. It is important to set that limit so that we can give legal certainty to public authorities and subsidy beneficiaries. Ongoing lack of legal certainty can be a strong disincentive for public authorities giving legitimate subsidies and for the enterprises agreeing to receive them.
For example, a subsidy could take the form of a loan guarantee for a capital investment, such as buying new machinery. Members will appreciate that a beneficiary would be naturally reluctant to go ahead with buying that machinery for as long as there is a possibility that the subsidy decision could be quashed and a recovery order made.
It is right that subsidies can be challenged and that interested parties have sufficient time limits to consider that challenge, but we must not create such prolonged uncertainty that it acts as a brake on legitimate subsidies. That is the balance that we have struck in the Bill with the limitation period, which is generally one month from the date the subsidy or scheme is uploaded on the transparency database.
It is also important to note that an interested party can make a pre-action information request to a public authority. The limitation period is then extended until one month after the public authority has responded. Since the pre-action information request gives the public authority up to 28 days to respond, in practice, the limitation period can run for two or three months after the publication of the subsidy or scheme on the database.
Clause 71 also makes it clear that in exceptional circumstances, the tribunal may extend the time limits for bringing a challenge, but this amendment would extend the general window for bringing a challenge from one month to three months. That is too long. It is longer than the challenge periods available in other areas where business decisions are dependent on the decisions of public bodies, such as procurement and planning decisions, where the limitation periods are 30 days and six weeks respectively. In those areas, the harmful effects of prolonged uncertainty have been recognised through the shorter challenge periods available. The same reasoning applies in the subsidy control context. If the general limitation period for challenging subsidy decisions were extended to three months, as the amendment proposes, public authorities and subsidy beneficiaries could, in practice, have to wait as long as five months before having reasonable legal certainty about a subsidy. That is far too long. It is important to allow sufficient time for those affected by subsidy decisions to submit their claim, while ensuring that public authorities and beneficiaries can proceed to implement subsidy decisions with certainty once they are made. The Government believe that the timings provided for in the clause strike an appropriate balance between those two objectives. I therefore request that the hon. Member withdraw the amendment.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. I was intending to press the amendment to a vote, but there is a wider question about how we improve the balance regarding how this amount of time is used within the framework of the Bill. Should public authorities be given a shorter time in which to upload, to allow more time for a challenge to be brought? The same amount of time would have elapsed, but that could be a far better framework for the regime.
In the light of the comments made and the consideration that we need to look at this as a whole, I will not press the amendment to a vote today, but we intend to return to this. It will be important for the certainty that we want to see and the transparency we need. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Kirsty Blackman
I rise to speak to amendment 31 in clause 71, page 40, line 36, leave out ‘one month’ and insert ‘6 months’.
This amendment allows CAT referrals a longer period to be made.
This is a pretty similar amendment, as it is about extending the length of time in which a challenge can be brought before the CAT. I wholeheartedly agree with what the shadow Minister has just said. If the Minister’s greatest concern is ensuring that the period of uncertainty is not increased, there remains an issue about the balance. We could ensure that that level of uncertainty existed for the same length of time but the balance was correct, so public authorities could upload these things very quickly, making the total challenge period shorter. That balance needs to be changed.
On amendment 31, the Opposition have made pretty much all the arguments I was going to make, so I will not take up too much of the Committee’s time. More than one amendment has been tabled on the matter, as well as on the database and its timings, and a number of comments were made in the witness sessions about the balance in the Bill not being right. I hope that the Minister will take on board the strength of feeling and give consideration to changing that balance by reducing the amount of time available for people to put things on the database and increasing the amount of time allowed for organisations to challenge. I therefore have no wish to move the amendment.
The Chair
The hon. Lady does not wish to move her amendment. Does the Minister wish to comment?
Paul Scully
I will just say that I always take on board and reflect on everything that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North says—and, indeed, other colleagues as well.
The Chair
The amendment is not moved.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause amends the Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2015 to set out the time limits in which an interested party must make an application to the CAT to review a subsidy decision. It is important to provide for time limits within which a challenge may be brought against a subsidy decision. It is important to allow sufficient time for those affected by subsidy decisions to submit their claim, while ensuring that public authorities and beneficiaries can proceed to implement subsidy decisions with certainty once they are made. We believe that the timing provided in the clause strikes the appropriate balance between those objectives.
The one-month limitation period starts only once the subsidy or scheme is published on the subsidy transparency database, but the limitation period for challenging decisions can be extended in certain circumstances. The first is where an interested party makes a pre-action information request. That will give the interested party a further month to bring their challenge, starting from when the pre-action request is responded to. Clause 76 enables an interested party to gather more information before deciding whether to challenge a subsidy decision and gives the public authority the opportunity to explain its decision, which may cause the interested party to decide that litigation is unnecessary.
The limitation period will also be extended where the Secretary of State refers the subsidy or scheme to the subsidy advice unit under clause 60. The interested party will then, again, have a further month to bring its challenge, starting from when the post-award referral report is published. Finally, the CAT has the discretion to extend the time limits set out in clause 71.
Seema Malhotra
Notwithstanding our concerns that the right balance has not been struck, we will not vote against clause stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 71 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72
CAT powers on review: England and Wales and Northern Ireland
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause gives the Competition Appeal Tribunal the ability to grant the same forms of relief as are available to the High Court on an application for judicial review in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. The tribunal must likewise apply the same principles as the High Court in deciding whether to grant relief, and the remedies granted by the CAT are, where relevant, the same as those currently available to the High Court.
It is important that these remedies are available to the tribunal when it determines that a decision to give a subsidy or make a subsidy scheme was unlawful. That will ensure that the subsidy control principles, prohibitions and other requirements can be effectively enforced through the tribunal and, in turn, incentivise compliance. It will also ensure that the UK meets its commitments under its international agreements.
The clause works intrinsically with the clauses that follow it. Clause 73 makes equivalent provision in relation to Scotland. That is necessary because Scotland is a separate jurisdiction and has a different set of remedies for applications to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, which is the judicial review equivalent. Clause 74 gives the CAT the power to award an additional form of relief—a recovery order. That will give the CAT the ability, should it deem it appropriate, to order a public authority to recover a subsidy, in part or in whole, to rectify any adverse impacts on competition and investment in the UK caused by its award.
Seema Malhotra
The Minister has outlined in some detail what the clause does. It grants the CAT power to give certain forms of relief, similarly to the High Court. The CAT may grant a mandatory order, a prohibiting order, a quashing order, a declaration or an injunction. We recognise the importance of these powers, so we will support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 72 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73
CAT powers on review: Scotland
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause gives the CAT the power to grant equivalent forms of relief as are available to the Court of Session in an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of that Court. When reviewing a case in Scotland, the CAT will be required to apply the same principles as the Court of Session would in those cases.
It is necessary to make separate provision for when the CAT is reviewing an application in Scotland as compared to England, Wales or Northern Ireland because, as the Committee is already aware, Scotland has a separate legal jurisdiction and its own system of judicial review, which differs from that in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. The clause therefore ensures that the tribunal has appropriate and effective remedial powers when it is hearing Scottish cases.
Seema Malhotra
We have no further comments on the clause, which we support.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 73 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74
Recovery orders
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 74, page 43, line 34, at end insert—
“(4A) The annual report prepared by the CMA under section 25(4) of, and paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 to, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 must contain details of all recovery orders made in the relevant period including the names of the public authority and beneficiary and the amount to be recovered.”
This amendment provides for the CMA’s annual report to provide details of all recovery orders made the by the CAT in the relevant period.
Seema Malhotra
The clause confers a power on the CAT to make a recovery order if it has granted relief in respect of a subsidy decision and found that the decision was in contravention of the subsidy control requirements in chapters 1 and 2 of part 2 of the Bill. A recurring theme in the Bill is the lack of transparency baked into how the Government confer subsidies and the subsequent management and reporting of those subsidies, with subsidy referrals, exemptions for certain subsidies from the regulations, and the blocking, rather inexplicably, of transparency for smaller subsidies.
In our view, clause 74 represents the latest example of poor transparency. It confers a power on the CAT to make a recovery order if a subsidy is found to be in contravention of the control principles. A recovery order requires a public authority to recoup an amount of the subsidy from the beneficiary of the subsidy. This clause therefore creates a provision to allow any losses that the Government face when they mistakenly confer a subsidy on a business or industry that is in contravention of their own regulations to be recouped.
Does it not make sense, then, that parliamentarians and the public should be able to scrutinise subsidies that have been inadvertently conferred, to make sure that does not happen again? Indeed, as we seem to keep needing to remind Members, there should be adequate public oversight of the spending, or potentially mis-spending, of public money. Professor Rickard noted in her evidence to the Committee:
“The benefits of transparency, and more of it, outweigh the costs.”
She went on:
“I would encourage Members to think carefully about the ways in which we could further increase the transparency to ensure that the UK was a world leader in transparency in subsidies and so as to help to provide consistency and certainty for business and accountability to taxpayers”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 19, Q22.]
Transparency, and more of it, is a good thing. Imagine for a moment that an individual in charge of awarding a subsidy has taken the decision to corruptly award a subsidy to a business or sector from which he or she may gain direct financial benefit. If we are lucky, which we would need to be without adequate transparency, perhaps someone internal to their organisation would discover the malpractice. Without a publicly available report or register where the public can scrutinise which subsidies have been recalled and for what reason, that individual would get away with it and that malpractice could be swept under the rug.
It was discovered, for example, that Andrew Mills, an adviser to the Board of Trade who miraculously secured a £250 million PPE contract despite never having produced PPE in his life, received a pay-out of £32 million in that deal. That is an extremely large amount of money, which was paid out of the public purse, but that figure was only recently uncovered because one individual leaked it to the press. Transparency is therefore vital. That is why we are proposing amendment 76, which would require the CMA’s annual report to provide the full details of all recovery orders made by the CAT in the relevant period. That is what transparency looks like, that is what ensuring value for public money looks like, and that is why we hope the Government will give due consideration to the amendment.
Paul Scully
In addition to the ordinary judicial review remedies available under clauses 72 and 73, clause 74 gives the CAT the power to make a recovery order. It may order recovery of some or all of a subsidy if it finds that a subsidy or scheme was made in breach of the subsidy control principles, prohibitions and other requirements. The effect of the order will be to require the relevant public authority to recover the subsidy from the beneficiary. The method of recovery, the amount to be recovered and the timeframe for recovery will be for the CAT to determine.
As we have heard, amendment 76 would make it compulsory for the CMA’s annual report to include details of all recovery orders made in that year, including the names of the public authority, the beneficiary and the amount to be recovered. I support the objective of ensuring that the process of reporting and managing recovery orders is transparent and accountable; however, this intent is already met by the process as it stands in the Bill. Recovery orders, by their nature, will be made public, and enforcement mechanisms exist to ensure that they are followed. Accordingly, there is no need to give the CMA this additional reporting duty.
Kirsty Blackman
It would be useful if the Minister clarified how recovery orders are made public and how we can find that information.
Paul Scully
I will happily do so. Recovery orders are given during a hearing by the Competition Appeal Tribunal to a public authority if that public authority is found to have given a subsidy that breached the subsidy control principles, prohibitions and other requirements. The cases heard by the CAT are usually held in public, with any ruling later published on the tribunal website alongside a transcript of the hearing. The names of the public authority and the beneficiary, and the amount to be recovered, would ordinarily all be published within that for recovery orders.
I was at the CAT a couple of weeks ago, and I saw the virtual courtroom where a hearing about the takeover of Newcastle United was recently held. The hearing was viewed by 35,000 people—mainly Newcastle supporters, I suspect. According to the president of the CAT, more people watched it than attend, on average, the games of all but 15 of the premier league teams. There is a good degree of interest in the CAT’s decisions, which will be publicly available.
Kirsty Blackman
I am really glad that the CAT is so open and transparent. It should therefore not be that difficult for the CMA to put in its annual report the results of all the recovery orders that are published on the website.
Paul Scully
I will address that point, but if the tribunal decides to make a recovery order, the public authority in question must recover a subsidy from the beneficiary in accordance with the terms of the order. Recovery orders will be enforceable in the same way as an order made by the High Court or, in relation to Scotland, the Court of Session. The tribunal will hold public authorities accountable for the subsidies that they give. As the process is already transparent and holds public authorities accountable to the regime, it is not necessary to give the CMA a reporting obligation for recovery orders.
The CMA’s annual report would also not be the right place for that information to be collated. The requirement to produce a report under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 relates to the CMA’s functions. The Competition Appeal Tribunal, not the CMA, is responsible for recovery orders. The CAT already has the reporting systems needed for recovery orders. I therefore request that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston withdraw the amendment.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. He is right that recovery orders are published alongside hearings, but they are not collated, and it is not possible to see them easily in one place in order to understand collectively what is going on. If we want to know where things are not going well and what is happening across the regime from an end-to-end point of view, it is important to have that information not just publicly available, but easily accessible.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the hon. Member agree that it is very difficult for us to know what is coming up in the CAT unless we are looking at its website on a regular basis, so the transparency that we need as parliamentarians to see that the Bill is working effectively is not adequately fulfilled by the CAT’s current reporting duties?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for her comment, and she is right. When we develop legislation and introduce a regime, it has to stand the test of time and last beyond the time we spend in our individual roles. In five or 10 years, the Minister might have become Prime Minister.
Seema Malhotra
Others are starting their campaigns, so perhaps the Minister also will do so.
We need to think about making such information more easily accessible. We thought about whether the CMA should publish it simply because if we have data on the regime as a whole, it should not be too onerous to find a way of reporting some of it, perhaps in partnership with the Competition Appeal Tribunal. To enable us to see what is going on and where there are recovery orders, that would be useful alongside other information that we talked about, such as geographical information, so that we have an end-to-end view.
Kirsty Blackman
I have just one more thing to add on this. Clause 65 covered monitoring and reporting on subsidy control, and the five-year report that will be published. Does the hon. Member agree that if the annual report will not cover instances of recovery orders because they are not the responsibility of the CMA, the CMA’s review of the efficacy of the subsidy control regime would be an appropriate alternative place to report on them?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member makes a good point. I come back to our broader discussion about needing to have a clear view and how we can be efficient. Data collection and reporting requires thought and design about what will be most useful for coming forward into reporting and therefore fit for making decisions on. Nobody wants to collect the data for the sake of it; it is always for a purpose. How do we make it as streamlined, straightforward, accurate and quick as possible? It is worth coming back to this issue.
In the light of our earlier conversation about the Minister writing on what he expects to see in the annual report, that would also be an opportunity for us to revisit the issue and making sure that the reporting across the whole system is coherent and effective, as well as what would be annual and what would be in the more periodic reports. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
This clause gives the CAT the power to make a recovery order in addition to the standard judicial review remedies that will be available to the tribunal under clauses 72 and 73. As with the other remedies that will be available to the CAT, the power to order recovery will be at the CAT’s discretion. It will be for the tribunal to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the recovery of the subsidy is an appropriate remedy based on the facts in question. The CAT may decide a different remedy, or a combination of different remedies, is more appropriate depending on the facts in front of it.
The clause gives the tribunal flexibility in how the recovery order is framed to account for different types of subsidy that may need to be recovered. For example, the tribunal would have the power to decide how long a public authority should have to recover the subsidy and the means by which recovery is to be exercised. It will be for the tribunal to decide on a case-by-case basis the appropriate content of the recovery order. In many instances, it will be relatively clear which enterprises benefited from a subsidy that needs to be recovered, and relatively simple to require the public authority to recover the amount in question. However, there may be cases where the subsidy is complex in nature, with the tribunal concluding that it should be left to the public authority to calculate the exact amount to be repaid.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks. We support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 74 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 75
Appeals against decisions of the CAT
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The Competition Appeal Tribunal will, in the first instance, determine reviews of subsidy decisions by public authorities. In the rare instances where there are legitimate disputes on the meaning of the law underpinning a decision, it is important there is an ability to seek permission to appeal to a court of appeal. Appeals cannot be made simply because one party to the litigation does not agree with the outcome. There will have to be a genuine ground of appeal citing an error in the application of the law. The clause provides the basis on which appeals can be made as appropriate to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or to the Court of Session in Scotland. Appeals may be made on any point of law with permission either from the tribunal or the relevant appellate court.
Seema Malhotra
As the Minister said, the clause allows appeals to be made to the Court of Appeal or the Court of Session on any points of law. We support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76
Duty to provide pre-action information
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 76, page 44, line 21, leave out
“such restrictions as it considers proportionate”
and insert
“the minimum restrictions that are necessary”.
This amendment provides that restrictions imposed to protect the specified categories of information should be the minimum necessary.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 78, in clause 76, page 44, line 27, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on the restrictions that are necessary to protect the types of information described in subsection (5).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on restrictions imposed under subsection (5).
Amendment 79, in clause 76, page 44, line 27, at end insert—
“(5B) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision enabling a person to appeal against a decision by a public authority to impose any restrictions under subsection (5).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision for an appeals process against restrictions imposed under subsection (5).
Seema Malhotra
Clause 76 imposes a duty on public authorities to provide certain information to interested parties about a subsidy or a subsidy scheme. An interested party may request the information for the purpose of deciding whether to apply to the CAT for a review of a subsidy or scheme on the grounds that it failed to comply with the relevant subsidy control requirements. A request must be made in writing and the interested party must state that they are considering applying for a review. The public authority must respond to the request within 28 days and it may impose restrictions that it considers proportionate to protect commercially sensitive or legally privileged information.
Amendment 77 would mean that restrictions should be the minimum necessary when imposed to protect commercially sensitive, confidential or legally privileged information or information whose disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Let us compare that with the current wording of the Bill, which is that the public authority may impose restrictions that it considers proportionate. The original wording is very ambiguous, provides too little guidance for the public authority and provides little recourse to challenge if it is determined that the restrictions imposed were in fact disproportionate. The restrictions imposed by the public authority should not be overly excessive. It is important that information that should be made public is made public to allow maximum transparency. If we keep the original text, a public authority could choose unnecessarily to make public more than is proper, hampering adequate transparency measures.
Amendment 78 would provide a proper route for challenge if a public authority imposed restrictions under subsection (5) that were found to be excessive. On amendment 79, we consider it proper that where restrictions have been imposed on the release of information to interested parties on the basis of, for example, commercial or legal sensitivities, there is an appeals process to ensure that the decision made was the correct one. That is essential to ensure that a public authority is not able to abuse its powers in deciding which restrictions to impose, and encourages the public authority to choose the minimum restrictions necessary or possibly face an appeals process.
Overall, although we believe that our amendments would substantially improve clause 76, we recognise the clause’s importance in allowing interested parties to make a request for information.
Paul Scully
The purpose of clause 76 is to put a duty on public authorities to provide certain information, at the request of an interested party, about their decision to give a subsidy or make a subsidy scheme. That is so that the interested party can decide whether to apply for a review of that decision at the CAT. The pre-action information request will allow claims to proceed more efficiently, and help to avoid unmeritorious challenges. The public authority must respond to the request within 28 calendar days, but can impose proportionate restrictions, as set out in subsection (5), to protect certain types of sensitive, confidential, legally privileged or other information that should not be disclosed. It is important that a public authority is able to impose those restrictions, as that may be needed to avoid potential legal challenges—for example, if certain information is subject to a legal duty of confidentiality, and to avoid disclosing information contrary to the public interest. Where a pre-action information request has been made, it is very clearly in the interests of the relevant public authority to provide a full return and to use with some caution the restrictions on providing those types of information. For that reason, this trio of amendments is unnecessary.
If a public authority abuses the provisions in clause 76(5) and provides insufficient information to clarify whether its subsidy decision complied with the subsidy control requirements, it is all the more likely that the interested party will proceed to a full challenge. If they do, the public authority may be required to disclose further information in proceedings before the tribunal. The public authority will have gained nothing.
I am very reluctant to agree to produce guidance on what might be the minimum restrictions necessary, because that will depend on the facts of each case. The risk that public authorities misuse the discretion that clause 76(5) gives them seems small and, as I have said, it is not in their interests to do so. That risk is smaller than the risk of producing unhelpful guidance that does not allow public authorities to disclose the right information in the context of each case. The amendments propose taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Ultimately, I am confident that, helped by the guidance, there will be a high degree of compliance with the regime and very few occasions when there are grounds for a challenge.
Seema Malhotra
The Minister may be coming to this point, but will he clarify the process he envisages in a case where there is suspicion that, rather than information being commercially sensitive, there is another reason for not disclosing it? Is there a way to challenge that or to appeal? We want to understand this; that is why we tabled the amendments.
Paul Scully
Yes, I will come to that.
I am similarly reluctant to agree that the Government should create a special route of appeal against public authorities’ decisions on what information to provide. There is only a remote chance that such a route would ever be needed, but there is already a route to challenge a public authority’s decision under the clause. Depending on the facts, the general right to judicial review in the High Court or the Court of Session may be available. As I said, however, we can be confident that there will be a high level of compliance, and I am even more confident that public authorities will not act against their own interests and those of subsidy beneficiaries by withholding information unnecessarily in a pre-action information request. It would be excessive to create a special route to challenge the way public authorities comply with these requests.
The Bill makes it firmly in a public authority’s interests to provide a full response to a pre-action information request and to take a sincere and serious approach to imposing restrictions on what information it provides. Inadequate disclosure would increase the chances of a full challenge, and with it the likelihood of further information needing to be disclosed in proceedings before the tribunal. Setting up an apparatus of guidance, regulations and special routes of appeal around the pre-action information request would be wholly disproportionate to the risks that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston set out. I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks. I am not entirely sure that he has identified an alternative route. On the basis that he thinks there could be a route, and to allow time to review and test that, I will not press the amendments today, but I would be grateful if he replied in writing on one specific point. If an interested party makes a request and, under subsection (5), the public authority imposes restrictions that it has reason to believe are spurious, for example, the Minister says that JR may be available. The question is whether JR is available. I would like him to state where and how there is the equivalent of an appeal mechanism. If he does that, I would be happy to say that we feel that that important issue has been dealt with.
The Minister also says that only in a small number of cases—I forget his exact words—might the provision be misused, but sometimes the point of having law is to make sure that it is there for such occasions. We cannot predict how many times a mechanism for appeal and challenge may be required, but one day, when he is, perhaps not the Prime Minister, but the Secretary of State, he might have reason as an interested party to use it. For the purpose of ensuring that there is a robust regime, it is important that we cover off this point. If such a mechanism is in the Bill, as he hopes it is, it would be good to have clarification in writing.
Paul Scully
I am happy to go again. The public authorities have a statutory duty. They understand their legal position and the legal duties. That is why I believe the number of such cases will be minimal. If public authorities do not provide the correct information, the interested party can go straight to the CAT for a full challenge, but judicial review is available in those circumstances. With three avenues, we do not feel it is necessary to create a specific one for this set of circumstances, but I will put clarification in writing.
Seema Malhotra
On the basis that I expect a letter from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause imposes a duty on public authorities to provide certain information to interested parties about a subsidy or subsidy scheme. An interested party may request the information for the purpose of deciding whether to challenge the subsidy or subsidy scheme on the ground that the public authority failed to comply with the principles, prohibitions and other requirements in the Bill. To avoid being timed out on bringing a challenge, a request should be made before the expiration of the one-month challenge period, in writing, and the interested party musts state that they are making the request for purpose of deciding whether to review a subsidy or subsidy scheme decision. The public authority must respond to the request within 28 calendar days, but can impose proportionate restrictions to protect certain types of sensitive, confidential, legally privileged information or other information that should not be disclosed because that would not be in the public interest. The purpose of the duty is to ensure that interested parties can make a well-informed decision on whether to commence a challenge against a subsidy decision.
Seema Malhotra
Having explained how we believe our amendments would have improved the clause, we acknowledge its importance in allowing interested parties to request information and therefore support its standing part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77
Misuse of subsidies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause confers on public authorities the right to recover a subsidy that has been used for a purpose that is different from the one for which it was given. Public authorities give subsidies with a specific purpose in mind. They will determine whether the subsidy complies with the subsidy control principles in the Bill. They will reference the purpose for which the subsidy has been given. Many public authorities award subsidies through a written contractual arrangement that sets out the terms and conditions under which the financial assistance is being given; this is likely to state the purpose for which the assistance is being given.
Kirsty Blackman
I am sorry to interrupt the prospective Secretary of State mid-flow, but I have a question. Does the clause apply to subsidies below the de minimis threshold?
Paul Scully
I will come to that in a second.
It is good practice for the contractual arrangements to contain a mechanism allowing public authorities to recover a subsidy if the terms and conditions are breached, including whether the subsidy is misused. However, not all subsidies are given through contractual arrangements, and those may not have a mechanism to recover the subsidy if it is used for a different purpose. Public authorities may have other private law rights that enable them to recover the subsidies in those circumstances. The clause is designed to avoid any uncertainty by conferring on public authorities a right to recover subsidies used for a purpose other than that for which they were given. The new right to recover is enforceable as if it were a contractual right and does not affect any other remedies that might be available to the public authority with respect to the award of the subsidy in question.
Seema Malhotra
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for her question, which is important.
As the Minister outlined, the clause gives public authorities the power to recover subsidies used for purposes other than the purpose for which they were given. That is an extremely important stipulation. Subsidies should be used only as intended, in line with the subsidy control requirements, and as agreed between the public authority and the recipient. We will support the clause standing part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
May I write to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North on her question? I am not sure whether the clause will apply, but I will write to her.
Kirsty Blackman
Thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (Fourth sitting)
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 8 - Wheeler, Mrs Heather
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 8 - Wheeler, Mrs Heather
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 8 - Wheeler, Mrs Heather
The Chair
Good afternoon. I remind Members that they are expected to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 20
Guidance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Davies. The clause indicates the intention that the Secretary of State will give guidance to local authorities in respect of their functions under this part of the Bill. With that guidance, local authorities will be better able to fulfil their functions in a consistent way. Where keepers are unable to provide for primates’ welfare needs, local authorities can be confident that Government guidance can advise them how best to improve the situation for primates in their area.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I may have inadvertently given my speech on this clause before lunch. I feel no need to test anyone on whether they noticed, nor any need to repeat it, other than to say that we feel that the Government really ought to do provide this guidance, and it ought to be a “must” rather than a “may”.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Information
Amendments made: 20, in clause 21, page 11, line 16, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Amendment 21, in clause 21, page 11, line 17, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Amendment 22, in clause 21, page 11, line 24, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Amendment 23, in clause 21, page 11, line 26, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Amendment 24, in clause 21, page 11, line 27, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The information required under the clause will enable the Government to build a national view of how different local authorities use their powers under the Bill. It will also provide information on the number of primates being kept under licence. It will help to ensure that the legislation is implemented and enforced effectively and consistently.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Power to extend Part 1
Amendment made: 25, in clause 22, page 11, line 31, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate national authority”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 22, page 12, line 1, leave out from beginning to second “provision” in line 2 and insert
“The consequential, supplementary, or incidental provision that may be made under this section includes”.
This amendment is a drafting change that is consequential on the new clause about regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 23 stand part.
Clause 38 stand part.
Clause 49 stand part.
Government amendments 56 and 58.
Government new clause 3—Regulations.
Victoria Prentis
New clause 3 brings provisions relating to the parliamentary procedures that must be used when making regulations under parts 1, 2 and 3 into one clause that will be inserted into part 4. At the appropriate times, I will move that clauses 23, 38 and 49 should not stand part of the Bill. Amendment 26 makes minor changes, all of which are consequential on the removal of clauses 23, 38 and 49 and the introduction of new clause 3.
Daniel Zeichner
I find this set of amendments baffling. I would welcome an explanation from the Minister as to why it was necessary to bring forward these amendments to the Government’s own Bill and what that means, not least because clause 22 seems to give the Government permission to extend the licensing system to any other kind of wild animal. I am not sure why they want that power. It is important that that is explained. As I argued earlier, the fact that everything will be done by regulation leads us to wonder what is planned and how it might be challenged in future. An explanation would be welcome.
Members of the Committee may have read the memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It is quite helpful on this Bill. I am struck by the fact that these amendments are subsequent to that memorandum. Is there a revised memorandum, and when might we see it?
Victoria Prentis
I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that he may have got ahead of himself again in talking about clause 22. With your permission, Mr Davies, I will deal with clause 22 stand part later. New clause 3 and amendment 26 merely bring the Bill into line with itself, as amended. Clauses 23, 38 and 49 will be removed, so we have made insertions to make that operable. I fear that the hon. Gentleman was talking about the power to introduce regulations to regulate the keeping of other wild animals. Is that right?
Victoria Prentis
On the clauses that we are now discussing, we have carefully considered the parliamentary procedures. All powers to make regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee are happy with that.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. This clause provides the Secretary of State with a power to introduce regulations to amend part 1 of the Bill to regulate the keeping of other wild animals. The power will allow the provisions to be extended to other kinds of wild animals that are not normally domesticated in Great Britain. The use of this power would be dependent on our gathering significant evidence in support of extending the primate provisions to another type of kept wild animal. It is quite clear that the Secretary of State is required to consult appropriate persons before making regulations.
The Government do not have any immediate plans to extend the measures in the Bill to other wild animals, and the power will be used only when there is evidence to show that Government intervention is necessary to ensure that the complex welfare needs of an animal are met. It is in the Bill that the Secretary of State will consult relevant experts before using the power, which ensures that we can prevent other wild species from suffering as pets and being kept in inappropriate conditions. We can ensure that any further regimes are in line with the primates licensing regime. Environmental non-governmental organisations have expressed considerable support for the extension of this regime to other kept wild animals, should the need arise.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. To go back to points I made earlier, we seem to be designing a licensing system for a relatively small number of cases and then, at the end of the discussion, saying, “Ah, yes. This can also be used in wider circumstances.” That seems to be the wrong way round, and I think we will have the same discussion a bit further down the line on the extensive changes to the regulations applying to dogs. Although I do not necessarily have any objection to that, it is a curious way of proceeding. To some extent, it would have altered the discussion on Second Reading or more widely if people had known that the Government were setting up a new system, which is fine, but this started off being about primates.
Although we will not oppose the clause, I observe that it seems, from my conversations with organisations in the world outside, that they are not entirely clear what the provision is about. As one always says in these circumstances, I have no doubt that Ministers are well intentioned, but not all their successors may be. There is a considerable power to set up a new system for a whole range of animals well beyond primates.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23 disagreed to.
Clause 24
Meaning of “keep”
Amendment made: 30, in clause 24, page 12, line 28, after “England” insert “and Wales”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause defines the meaning of the word “keep” in part 1. It is necessary to ensure that the provisions apply to the right people. A person does not “keep” a primate if they are in temporary possession of a primate in order to prevent it from causing damage, in order to transport it on behalf of somebody else, or when providing it with vet treatment. The clause also confirms that a person who ceases to be in possession of a primate while it is in England or Wales will continue to be treated as the keeper until another person takes possession of the primate.
Daniel Zeichner
I repeat what I said earlier: we do not think that people should be passing, keeping or transferring these creatures. We just think they should not be kept.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
General interpretation
Amendments made: 31, in clause 25, page 12, line 31, at end insert—
““appropriate national authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;”.
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Amendment 32, in clause 25, page 13, line 1, after “authority”” insert “, in relation to England,”.
This amendment limits the existing definition of “local authority” to England, in consequence of the application of Part 1 to Wales by Amendment 3.
Amendment 33, in clause 25, page 13, line 3, after “council” insert “in England”,
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 32.
Amendment 34, in clause 25, page 13, line 7, at end insert—
““local authority”, in relation to Wales, means a county council or county borough council in Wales;”.
This amendment relates to the application of Part 1 to Wales and provides for a definition of “local authority” for Wales.
Amendment 35, in clause 25, page 13, line 21, at end insert—
“(2) Where any premises are partly in the area of one local authority and partly in the area of another local authority, the premises are treated for the purposes of this Part as being in the area of the local authority in which the major part of the premises is situated.”—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment provides that where premises are partly in one local authority’s area and partly in another one’s, they are treated as being in the area of the local authority where the major part of the premises is situated.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause provides definitions of the terms used in the primate provisions in the Bill. It confirms that “primate” means an animal of any species other than man that belongs to the order of primates.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Offence where dog attacks or worries livestock
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause provides that a person who owns or is in charge of a dog will be guilty of an offence if the dog attacks or worries livestock on any agricultural land or a road, path or verge thereof. The clause explains under what circumstances a person does not commit an offence even if a dog attacks or worries livestock. An owner will not commit an offence if they can prove that the dog was in the charge of another person without their consent—for example, if the dog had been stolen. The penalty for the offence is a fine up to level 3 on the standard scale.
Daniel Zeichner
We have moved beyond primates. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Exactly. We are into a new part of this curious Bill. I start by welcoming the Government’s decision to update the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which I had the pleasure of reading over lunch. It is extraordinary how much more succinct the legislation was in those days. It did it all in three pages—and, apparently, for thruppence. The Act has been on the statute book for a long time, and although it has been updated periodically, it clearly needs bringing into the modern period. We are all aware of the horrific impact that livestock worrying can have and the concern it creates for livestock owners across England and Wales.
Equally, we all welcome the increased access to the countryside that there has been in recent years and that many of our citizens have made good use of, particularly in the past couple of years. We also recognise the economic impact that those people bring to the rural economy. That is a positive. However, if more people are coming into such areas and walking in the countryside with their dogs, and if they are not well informed about the need to behave responsibly—and, sadly, some do behave irresponsibly—there is always the risk that the owners will fail to take good care of their dogs when they are close to livestock. This has clearly had an harmful impact on a number of communities. When the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare looked into livestock worrying, I am told that it estimated that about 15,000 sheep had been killed by dogs in 2016. In 2019, NFU Mutual stated that livestock worrying cost the sector £1.2 million. The National Sheep Association’s annual survey on livestock worrying in 2020 found that 95% of its respondents had experienced livestock worrying on their farm, with the average cost being more than £1,000. As you would expect me to observe, Mr Davies, at a time when farmers are open to being undercut through the trade deals being cut by the Government, every single penny counts.
Livestock worrying also leaves dogs open to harm. SheepWatch UK has told us that in 2016 at least 49 dogs were shot and killed for chasing or killing sheep. These are complicated issues, and we know just how much distress can be caused to a huge range of people—the owners of the livestock, those who witness such events, and the emergency services who have to turn up and deal with the problems. It causes great pain and distress and, sadly, often death to the attacked animals. It also puts the life and health of the dog and the owner in danger, as horses and cattle, for example, are quite capable of causing harm not only to a dog that is attacking them, but to the people with them. I am sure that we will discuss that later.
I welcome the Government’s decision to take action in this area, but we believe that there is scope to improve the measures, and we have a number of amendments, which we will come to this afternoon, that would do that. A final point on this introductory clause to part 2: we are slightly disappointed that there no mechanism for compensating victims of livestock worrying. A later amendment of ours may address that issue. On that basis, I am quite happy with the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Seizure and detention of dogs
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
This clause targets reoffending—cases where either the same dogs are found attacking livestock repeatedly, or where an owner has several dogs that worry livestock. It is important to bear in mind that about two thirds of livestock worrying incidents happen when an owner is not with their dog, and it has escaped or run away from them. Under the clause, the dog can be detained until the owner has claimed it and paid any associated expenses. The police will be able to seize and detain a dog if they have reasonable grounds to believe that it has attacked or worried livestock, or may make further attacks on livestock.
Daniel Zeichner
We have come to a series of clauses that get into the detail of how we address this issue in the new world. We have no objection to much of the detail, but as I said earlier, we seem to be designing new systems for dealing with dogs—and their owners, in some cases; we will look at that further in other clauses. I wonder a bit about how the measures will work and overlap with existing legislation. There are frequent debates in Parliament about the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, for instance. I worry that we are designing a new system that starts from livestock worrying, but that could cover many other aspects of how dogs behave, and we could be duplicating measures, or creating a system that will be extrapolated from to cover other circumstances. Obviously, livestock worrying is an important issue in itself, but a whole range of things follow from it that it may be relevant to discuss and consider in the round in another way. However, when it comes to how one might deal with livestock worrying, there is nothing in the clause that we object to, and we are happy to proceed with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Collection of samples and impressions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause introduces powers to improve the ability of the police to investigate incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock. In creating the Bill, we worked closely with the police, and the provisions have very much been co-designed with them, so that they have the tools that they need in the modern world to enforce the legislation. This clause enables a police constable to take samples or impressions from a dog, livestock, or, sadly, the body of a livestock animal if it might be evidence of an offence committed under clause 26. The police say that that is a very welcome development that will really assist in prosecuting this offence.
Daniel Zeichner
I am afraid I will be making the same point consistently on these clauses. I am glad to hear that the measures were developed in consultation with the police, but I suspect that the powers could also be used in other circumstances. That is my ongoing concern about the way we are proceeding, although as far as we can see these are sensible proposals.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Power of justice of the peace to authorise entry and search
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Clause 29 enables a justice of the peace to authorise the police—again, this has been asked for—to enter and search premises in connection with offences where a dog is believed to have attacked or worried livestock. That includes the power to take a sample or impression from the dog.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Control order upon conviction under section 26
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Clause 30 enables the courts to make control orders after conviction of an offence under clause 26, if the dog was found not to have been under proper control at the time of the offence. The control order must specify one or more measures that the offender or the owner of the dog, or both, must take to ensure that the dog is kept under proper control in the future. The owner of the dog, as well as the offender, may appeal against a control order to the Crown court. It is an offence to breach a control order; the penalty is a fine not exceeding level 3.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Destruction order upon conviction under section 26
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Clause 31 introduces a power for the court to order that a dog be destroyed after a person has been convicted of an offence under clause 26, if the court is satisfied that there is a risk that the dog could attack or worry livestock again. The offender and the owner, if different, have the right to appeal against a destruction order to the Crown court.
Daniel Zeichner
We are working here with a series of proposals to deal with these very difficult cases. No one wants to see a dog destroyed.
My question is about whether any work has been done to consider how many control orders the Government anticipate being used under these proposals and how many destruction orders might follow. When we come to discuss the orders in future debates, in Westminster Hall or wherever, people may be rightly concerned that the orders have led to too many dogs being destroyed unnecessarily. Possibly it will be the other way round: perhaps the orders will not have been used strongly enough to deter people from behaving irresponsibly—if that is the purpose of this legislation, which I hope it is.
Victoria Prentis
Destruction orders are, of course, already available to the courts in relation to dogs that are dangerous and not kept under proper control, including in some cases—through other legislation that is already enforced—when a dog has worried livestock. It is important to remember that we are designing these changes with proportionality very much in mind. The ancillary orders being brought under this legislation would be available to a court only post-conviction. The courts will of course need to consider proportionality when making any control, disqualification or destruction orders.
The Bill gives additional powers to the police—particularly in the collection of samples or DNA, for example. That will help them prosecute these serious crimes.
Daniel Zeichner
I apologise for my lack of detailed knowledge about the complex interrelationship between existing laws and the new proposals. I suppose what I am trying to get at is the problem that the Government are seeking to solve through this new legislation given that, from my limited understanding, there is already legislation that could be used to achieve something that looks broadly similar.
Victoria Prentis
As the hon. Gentleman has said, legislation has been in place since 1953. It was amended substantially in 1981 and is operable at this point. The new legislation, following our close work with the police, works on ways to make things easier and on modern tools and technologies, such as DNA sampling, to ensure that the police can prosecute the offences. As we have seen, the police will have that power, having had the authorisation of a JP to enter and search a premises in order to take a sample from or, where necessary, seize a dog.
This part of the Bill is designed to make existing powers more operable—easier and better to prosecute, giving the police extra tools to use in the prosecution of their duties. Yes, that is true of many of the powers, including the power to destroy a dog where necessary, although rehoming is also very much on the cards in many cases. Destruction, where that is decided to be necessary, however, is already an option. Such options remain in place, but this part of the Bill will help the police go about the course of their duties.
Daniel Zeichner
That is a helpful explanation, but only up to a point. I am left concluding that the Government seem not to be taking away the existing legislation and necessarily improving it, but adding additional legislation, which creates potential confusion. I understand the need to collect samples or use new technologies—absolutely right—but I am not clear why the destruction orders in particular need to be added to with this extra legislation in the Bill. I am not objecting; please do not—
Victoria Prentis
I might be able to help. I am trying to find the right clause, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that one of the clauses repeals the 1953 Act. Much of the wording is the same, but the Bill will replace the 1953 Act. The legislation has been put into this Bill. I hope that is clear. While I am on my feet, the other thing I should have said earlier is that we have extended the meaning of “livestock” in the Bill to include species that were not kept routinely in 1953, but now are, such as alpacas.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful. It was clause 41—I am sure we are not expected to commit these things to memory. I was aware of that, but I am still not entirely clear whether all the existing legislation stems from the 1953 Act. In this case, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to pass judgment on that, but I suspect that it may not be, so my continuing concern is that when we look at other things, such as the Dangerous Dogs Acts 1989 and 1991, we will find overlapping and duplication that it might have been a good idea to sort out in general. As a general proposition, the clause provides a framework for dealing with livestock worrying, and we support that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Disqualification order upon conviction under section 26 or breach of control order
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause allows the courts to make a disqualification order if a person is convicted of an offence of a dog attacking or worrying livestock, or of breaching a control order imposed by the courts under clause 30. A disqualification order may disqualify the offender from owning dogs, keeping dogs, or both. A person that breaches such an order commits an offence.
Daniel Zeichner
This is becoming a fascinating exchange. What is being done here is the putting in place of a range of measures, whether that is control orders, disqualification orders or destruction orders. A structure—though not necessarily a new one—is being created to deal with that set of issues. Again, I can see nothing wrong with the structure, but how it will interact with others bothers me.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Seizure and disposal of dogs in connection with disqualification order
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause makes provision for the seizure and disposal—we hope by rehoming, where possible—of dogs in connection with disqualification orders introduced in clause 32. The clause also clarifies the right of appeal in relation to orders made in respect of dogs kept by a person to whom a disqualification order applies, whether or not that person is the owner.
When a court makes a disqualification order, if the person to whom the order applies owns or keeps a dog, the court may order that the dog can be taken away from them. If the owner is not the offender, they may appeal to the Crown court against the order made for the disposal of their dog.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Termination of disqualification order
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause provides further detail on how the disqualification orders introduced in clause 32 will be put into practice. The clause sets out the rights of the offender to apply for the order to be terminated and explains the rights and responsibilities of the applicant and the court.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Sections 31 and 33: supplementary
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause provides further detail on how the disqualification and destruction orders will work. A person who fails to comply with the requirement to deliver up a dog as imposed under a disqualification order or a destruction order commits an offence and is liable upon conviction to pay a fine not exceeding level 3. Directions given by the court may specify how a dog is to be disposed of or delegate the decision about this to a person appointed under the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Control, destruction and disqualification orders: appeals
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause ensures that control, destruction and disqualification orders are not acted upon until the offender or dog owner has had the opportunity to appeal and had that appeal determined. The clause lists possible arrangements that the court can authorise, including directions for the dog to be taken into possession. It is an offence not to deliver up a dog subject to arrangements made by the court. Any expenses incurred in relation to the care of the dog can be recovered as a civil debt.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Crown application
Victoria Prentis
If the Committee wants to know a fun fact, the Crown is not bound by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Corgis are not dangerous—well, certainly not under that Act, anyway.
Victoria Prentis
And they are Welsh—yes, indeed. From Pembrokeshire, not from the Gower.
The clause sets out how part 2 binds the Crown. The Crown should be bound by clauses 26 to 41 on livestock worrying in due respect for the duty to keep dogs under proper control and to mitigate the risk of harming the welfare of livestock. In the interests of national security, powers of entry in this part may be restricted in relation to Crown premises and are restricted in relation to Her Majesty’s private estates.
Daniel Zeichner
I found the clause slightly puzzling. I am not entirely sure what it means, as usual. Maybe the Minister will be able to elucidate. I am not sure whether it is referring to land owned by the Crown, although of course Crown premises apply to extraordinary places—I believe some Cambridge colleges are considered to be Crown premises. I am not sure—I could get myself in trouble here, couldn’t I?
Victoria Prentis
Crown premises are defined as
“premises held, or used, by or on behalf of the Crown.”
Daniel Zeichner
There is a serious point here, which is that there seem to be some exceptions being made that relate to certain land, possibly even to certain animals. I am not entirely sure why that is in place. Can the Minister explain?
The Chair
There are two types of corgi. I know one in Pembrokeshire and one in Carmarthenshire.
Victoria Prentis
You are of course right, Mr Davies.
This part of the Bill is trying to bind the Crown—to ensure the Bill applies to the Crown. As I said in a slightly tongue-in-cheek way, the Crown is not bound by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 or the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but this Bill will apply to the Crown, as set out, with the exemption of national security, which I highlighted earlier. I hope that assists the hon. Gentleman.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister. That is reassuring. I am thinking about my old college, King’s, and the cows grazing outside it. I certainly would not want to see them being troubled by dogs. Our understanding is that this clause is fine.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
I ask that clause 38 does not stand part of the Bill. New clause 3, in my name, will bring the parliamentary procedures for all regulation-making powers in the Bill into one place.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 38 accordingly disagreed to.
Clause 39
Meaning of “worrying livestock”
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 39, page 23, line 9, leave out
“or a pack of hounds”.
This amendment would remove the exemption for working packs of hounds from provisions covering livestock worrying.
We now move on to some of the definitions. As we have already heard, some of the wording has been lifted from the 1953 Act. There are probably some in the Government who wish we were still living in 1953. Looking at the events of last night, some of them still are living in 1953 in my view, but the world has moved on and our amendment reflects that fact.
I know that hunting with dogs is a controversial issue. It is something that I and colleagues on the Opposition Benches have sought to stop over many years. We are pleased that many on the Government Benches have come to that conclusion too. The Conservative manifesto in 2019 was quite clear:
“We will make no changes to the Hunting Act.”
“Good,” we say, but we would like to see that strengthened and the wordings, which have come from legislation from a different era, should reflect the new realities we now live in. The inclusion of hunting dogs in the list in clause 39 is part of that reference back to a different world.
With trail hunting, which is clearly now the only form of acceptable hunting, there is absolutely no need for the trail to be taken close to livestock. If that is happening, we have to ask ourselves why. It should not be happening, so we do not think this exemption is necessary and we would like the phrase taken out. We will press this amendment to a vote.
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman is right. We have carried over the existing language from the 1953 Act relating to assistance and working dogs. I listened to what he and colleagues said on Second Reading about the wording of this section generally, and I am certainly prepared to look at it. I think we need to look again at the language. It might, for example, be simpler to make a general exemption for working dogs while they are being worked, which is the situation in the Scottish legislation that was passed relatively recently. I also believe that “assistance dogs” is the modern terminology for guide dogs, although I would need to look at that further. Of course, assistance dogs, when they are being used, are usually—although perhaps not always—on the lead in any event. I feel that further work needs to be done on the wording, and I am happy to consider that before Third Reading. In those circumstances, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister. I think that is a sensible compromise, and I am very tempted by her offer, but on something as totemic as this I am afraid that we still have to press the amendment to a vote. What we have before us is what we have before us, and we do not think it should be in the Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 89, in clause 39, page 23, line 12, at beginning insert
“where keeping a dog on a lead of 1.8 metres or less would pose a risk of harm to the person in charge of the dog,”.
This amendment would broaden the definition of “at large” dogs, by requiring non-exempt dogs in fields with relevant livestock present to be on a lead to be deemed under control unless keeping the dog on a lead poses a risk of harm to the person in charge of the dog.
During the evidence sessions on the Bill, much of the debate on this topic came down to whether a dog should be on a lead or not, and we heard many people give their view on that question. As we understand it, the position in the Bill is that it is acceptable for a dog to be in a field with livestock without a lead as long as the owner is aware of its actions and reasonably confident that the dog will return to the person on command. We heard a number of people discussing that, and I think many of us feel that that is not always likely to be the situation. Certainly, the majority of wildlife organisations feel that it is time to make a change here. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, Blue Cross, the Canine and Feline Sector Group and many more have come out in support of a provision that would require dogs to be on leads when in a field that contains livestock.
Ultimately, dogs on leads are not in a position to run off from their owners and attack livestock, so, in my view, keeping them on a lead protects farm animals. That seems fairly straightforward to me. I appreciate that there may be more complexity, but that is the basic proposition. Given the serious financial and mental hardship that livestock worrying has been causing farmers, the need for someone to keep their dog on a lead does not seem to me to be a major sacrifice.
This was probably the issue that came up most in the evidence sessions. So far as I recall, most witnesses wanted dogs to be on a lead, and we agree. We recognise that near cattle, there is a risk to human life should the person with the dog not be able to release it swiftly. However, by my reading—I am willing to be corrected—clause 39(4) defines the relevant livestock for those purposes as
“poultry, enclosed gamebirds or sheep.”
The memo to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is helpful, referring on page 6 to the relevant livestock:
“It covers animals that will respond to being scared by a dog by running and clumping together, which can result in these animals getting trampled and smothered, sometimes leading to fatalities.”
While keeping the dog on a lead may not stop that altogether, I cannot help thinking that it would help.
When preparing for the Bill, Baroness Hayman—who worked on Labour’s 2019 animal welfare manifesto, and who is a guiding light for us—told me that requiring dogs to be kept on leads could, in some instances, result in harm to the dog owner. Most notably, if a dog on a lead attacks a herd of cows, they may decide to protect themselves by attacking the dog. When a dog is off the lead, it can run away fast enough to avoid danger.
I think that the Government have solved the problem. Amendment 89 strikes the right balance between the two issues. It requires dog owners to keep their dogs on a lead in fields where the relevant livestock are present, except in instances where doing so would pose a risk of harm to the person in charge of the dog.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time, Mr Davies. I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge.
Last week, we heard quite a bit of convincing evidence on the need to curtail and clarify the definitions in this regard. Mr Rob Taylor from the police force explained that although the Bill, as worded, might not necessarily cause a problem for the prosecution or investigation of such crimes under the Bill, such clarifications might help public understanding—so that people know, when walking in the countryside where there are livestock in the fields, that they need to keep their dog on a lead.
Furthermore, we heard from both the National Farmers Union and Dr Hazel Wright of the Farmers Union of Wales that such clarifications would perhaps embolden farmers to look at their signage and keep it current. Dr Wright mentioned that, as the law stands, farmers do not always feel encouraged or, indeed, incentivised to keep signage up to date, especially when it pertains to whether livestock are present in a particular field. Her argument was very convincing: if we were to clarify and strengthen the law so that it is clear when a dog needs to be kept on a lead, farmers would react positively and make the effort to keep their signage current and up to date. That would benefit those wishing to enjoy the countryside and be in the interests of farmers.
Representing a rural constituency, I have sadly had to see many photographs of the consequences of a dog attack. If we were able to clarify the law in this regard, it would not only greatly benefit farmers, but improve public understanding. Ultimately, that is the only real way to tackle and reduce instances of dog attacks. I again place on record my support for amendment 89.
Victoria Prentis
Diolch yn fawr. The debate has been useful and thoughtful, and I thank the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Ceredigion for their contributions. I am afraid that we will not accept the amendment, but I have no doubt that the debate will continue in order to find the way to get the balance right.
To avoid committing the “at large” offence, a dog walker would need to be aware of their dog’s actions and ensure it stays in sight. The person must be confident that their dog will come back promptly on command. It is not enough for the dog walker to merely think that their dog will come back when called. There are dogs who come back when called—not ones that have ever been members of my family, but I do know of such dogs—but for the rest of us, I would refer us very firmly to the recently refreshed countryside code. That document, which advises dog owners on how to walk their dogs responsibly, is worth a google when Members are out of Committee.
That document is supported by a public awareness campaign, which we tried to ramp up during lockdown because we found that there were many new dog owners who needed to be told very firmly that unless their dog was really under control, it needed to be on a lead. In the majority of cases, of course, if a person’s dog is not under control, they would be caught under the chasing offences in the Bill that we have just discussed, so it is very rare that this particular “at large” offence will be needed. I also remind the Committee once more that two thirds of livestock worrying attacks are by unaccompanied dogs, who are clearly not on leads because they do not have an owner with them. Their owners would be caught by the “at large” offence, but we do not think it is sensible and proportionate to catch responsible dog owners whose dogs are not on a lead and are not at risk of worrying livestock.
We will continue to work to raise public awareness. The countryside code is quite clear that owners should keep their dog under effective control,
“always keep your dog on a lead or in sight”,
“be confident your dog will return on command”,
and, on open access land and at the coast, owners must put their dog on a lead during periods of the year that are effectively lambing season. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, because I thought that the evidence we were given was pretty overwhelming. I think the concern that a number of people have expressed to us about the potential danger with cattle has been dealt with by the Government themselves in their definition of relevant livestock. I was grateful for the hon. Member for Ceredigion’s expertise and knowledge, and his point about the signage—which was strongly made in the evidence session—was well made.
I suggest to the Minister that people of my generation, and possibly hers, grew up with many of the promotions about the countryside code and so on. It was drummed into people, but I am not convinced that younger generations have got that message in quite the same way. Sometimes, when I see accounts of some offences by younger people, I am struck by the fact that what would seem obvious to me does not seem obvious to them. One of the most difficult things for a person to do is to put themselves in other people’s shoes. Particularly during lockdown, people went out with dogs for the first time, and we know that on a whole range of issues—not just livestock worrying—people behaved in ways that were challenging to many of the authorities.
Ben Lake
In support of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, one of the most surprising aspects of lockdown was how few people understood that they needed to close gates, which can cause a whole host of issues, both for the farmer and for the local communities that find a herd of cows or a flock of sheep going down the road. Those of us who are well versed in the countryside perhaps have a higher sensitivity to things such as the countryside code, but the younger generation and also, perhaps, those visiting or enjoying the countryside for the first time would respond with a very bemused expression if the countryside code was ever raised with them.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Listening to his comments, I realise that I am in danger of stigmatising younger people. I do not think it is their fault at all. It is partly because we have moved away from some of the public health and public information campaigns that we used to have.
Victoria Prentis
I absolutely understand the tenor of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Precisely for that reason, I refer him to the new and refreshed countryside code that was put out by Natural England during the last pandemic period. It is genuinely done in a way that is accessible and fresh for a new audience, so I politely suggest that members of the Committee have a good look at it and promote it wherever possible.
Daniel Zeichner
I gently reflect that, in the modern information age, that is sometimes more challenging for those of us who grew up on a diet of three channels on black and white TV. I am sorry to give away my age. However, you could not get away from a lot of the public information messages. In the modern world, there is far more. It is just my sense that there are a lot of people who have come into the countryside—and that is good; we want people to come and understand—but they do not necessarily understand. The message has to be simple and very clear.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
We are reaching a degree of consensus about this, in terms of the importance of education. Like the hon. Member for Ceredigion, I represent a rural constituency and we have had a lot of access to the countryside during the pandemic.
I take on board the Minister’s comments about the new countryside code. We have a spirit of agreement across the Committee and we encourage the Government, the Department for Education and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to advocate the countryside code going into schools. That way, it becomes part of the education process for the next generation so that people appreciate the countryside, appreciate how and where food is produced and how to be respectful of that countryside that we all enjoy. We are in agreement and we just need to get the message out there, into schools and into the education system.
Daniel Zeichner
Everyone would agree with all that, but that is for the future. We are dealing with a generation now. It is not just a generational issue, but groups of people are going into the countryside who are either not cognisant of those recommendations, or just not behaving very well, frankly. I am afraid there are people who do not. That is why we think a simple measure like this one would help alleviate the problems that people in the countryside face. We think that the amendment is important and quite straightforward, and on that basis, we will put it to a vote.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
I declare my interest as I did before: I live on a working family farm. Some people might be surprised to learn that Leigh is a county constituency and it has large rural parts. The Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, in which it sits, is also rural.
I have seen the aftermath of a dog attack on sheep. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, it is grim. I have immense sympathy on the issue, but believe the amendment as worded may prove to be a blunt instrument. However, I hope that, by the time we take the Bill to the next stage, the Minister will have some reassurance for those of us who have firm concerns on this issue and believe that dogs should be on a lead around sheep, poultry and other animals that would be at risk if they were let off the leash, given the terrible consequences that can happen when dogs become out of control in those circumstances.
Daniel Zeichner
I am sure the Minister has heard the strong words from her own side.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who set out well why we think the amendment is necessary. I want to pick up on something the Minister said. The confidence people have around being in control of their dogs is interesting and has definitely taken hold of some internet memes. Dare I say the word “Fenton”? I wanted to have more understanding of that element. I take the point that two thirds of dogs are unattended. However, the amendment is important because in that third of cases in which they are with their owner, should we not push for as much control as possible over an animal in the presence of the relevant livestock?
Victoria Prentis
I remind the hon. Lady that it is not enough for the dog walker merely to think their dog will come back when called. The dog must actually come back when called.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Victoria Prentis
The clause defines exactly what constitutes worrying livestock and sets out the exemptions.
Daniel Zeichner
Without re-rehearsing the previous discussion, we would have liked the clause to be strengthened, but our amendment has been rejected, so let us go forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Order. I am suspending the Committee for six minutes for a comfort break. We will have a new batch of clauses to go through when we return.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 40, page 23, line 32, at end insert—
“‘enclosed deer’ means any deer so long as they are being kept for business purposes on land enclosed by a barrier intended to prevent their escape;”
This amendment and related Amendment 42 are drafting changes.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 38 to 42, and 44 and 45
Amendment 88, in clause 42, page 25, line 17, at end insert—
“(f) adult poultry.”
This amendment would add adult poultry to the list of livestock species that may not be exported for slaughter.
Amendment 87, in clause 42, page 25, line 17, at end insert—
“(7A) An appropriate national authority may by regulations extend the definition of ‘relevant livestock’ in subsection (7).”
This amendment would enable an appropriate national authority to extend the list of the livestock species that may not be exported for slaughter.
Victoria Prentis
Government amendments 37 to 42 make minor and technical drafting changes to the definition of “livestock” that applies in part 2 of the Bill. The definition is intended to cover the types of animals that are kept in agricultural settings and may be vulnerable to attacks from dogs.
I do not believe that amendments 87 and 88, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge, are necessary. The definition of “relevant livestock” in clause 42 is drafted to cover all species that might be exported for slaughter or fattening. I have tabled Government amendments 40 and 41 to clarify that definition further.
We carried out a wide-ranging consultation on banning live exports and received no evidence at all that a ban on poultry was necessary. There are no exports of poultry for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to the EU. Poultry exports are either for breeding or other purposes not covered by the ban, such as exhibition. There have been no such exports of poultry for several years.
There are significant exports from Great Britain to the EU of day-old chicks, however, which are transported for breeding. Those movements do not generate major welfare concerns. The chicks are transported in high-welfare conditions, with a yolk sac or the equivalent gel for them to receive nourishment during the course of their journey. We have looked at this matter extensively and do not have welfare worries about the transportation of day-old chicks.
Daniel Zeichner
I hear what the Minister says, and we appreciate that there are no exports at the moment, but we do not quite see why the Government would not want to cover the export of adult poultry or give themselves the potential to change things in the future, which amendment 88 would allow them to do.
Looking back at our discussions on previous clauses, it is quite clear that the Government want—sensibly, in my view—to future-proof the legislation and give themselves and future Governments the opportunity to amend legislation. In fact, the delegated powers memorandum repeatedly makes the point that one of the problems with past legislation is that it has not been able to keep up with changing circumstances. In the modern world, given the uncertainties around our trading relationships, it is really hard to know how trading patterns will develop.
It is curious that we would not want to include adult poultry, which are just as capable as other animals of suffering poor health and welfare caused by long-distance transportation. I have been advised that a 2017 paper by Wageningen University & Research studied the transportation of live poultry for slaughter. It found that:
“During the transport, birds with broken bones suffer from pain, are not able to stand up and reach water supply, are stepped upon by other birds, and are prone to die”.
Clearly, that is the transport of adult poultry rather than export, but we cannot necessarily conclude that there will be no such trade in future. We have tabled amendment 88 because we cannot see why the Government would not want to include adult poultry. The Minister says that is not needed, but I cannot see why we would not include it when we have the opportunity.
In the future, science may well develop in such a way to show that a number of other species suffer from these problems in transport. Amendment 87 would give the Government the opportunity to future-proof legislation in a way I have suggested. However, these are essentially probing amendments and we will not push them to a vote.
Victoria Prentis
I think I have made my point, which is that there are, in fact, no poultry exports. In many ways it would be lovely if the Government could take all powers on to themselves for evermore, but I fear when we overreach in legislation. The fact that there have been no poultry exports for several years makes me feel that we should not take powers when we do not need them.
Amendment 37 agreed to.
Amendments made: 38, in clause 40, page 23, line 37, at end insert—
““enclosed wild boar” means any wild boar so long as they are being kept on land enclosed by a barrier intended to prevent their escape;”
This amendment and Amendment 41 provide that paragraph (g) of the definition of “livestock” covers only wild boar that are enclosed.
Amendment 39, in clause 40, page 23, line 39, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) cattle and other bovine animals,”
This amendment simplifies paragraph (a) of the definition of “livestock”, and ensures that it includes steers.
Amendment 40, in clause 40, page 23, line 40, leave out from “horses” to end of line and insert “and other equine animals”
This amendment simplifies paragraph (b) of the definition of “livestock”.
Amendment 41, in clause 40, page 24, line 5, after “or” insert “enclosed”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 38.
Amendment 42, in clause 40, page 24, line 8, leave out paragraph (j) and insert—
“(j) enclosed deer;”—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment and related Amendment 37 are drafting changes.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause sets out the definitions for terms used in part 2. They include definitions for agricultural land and livestock. The clause also provides the Secretary of State with the power to amend, through regulations, the definition of livestock for part 2 where that might be necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41
Repeal of the 1953 Act in England and Wales
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
This clause repeals the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 in respect of England and Wales. The 1953 Act is replaced by clauses 26 to 40. Much of that Act, as we heard earlier, has been copied over into the new clauses where appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Prohibition of export of livestock for slaughter etc
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 42, page 25, line 7, leave out “3 months” and insert “6 months”
This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment for an offence under this clause committed in Scotland from 3 months to 6 months.
Victoria Prentis
These are minor and technical amendments to clauses 42, 43 and 46, which relate to the prohibition on the export of relevant livestock for slaughter and the power relating to the importation of dogs, cats and ferrets.
Amendment 43 increases the maximum term of imprisonment in Scotland for a contravention of the prohibition on live exports from three months to six months. This change was requested by the Scottish Government and will bring the penalties in line with the penalty that will be available in England and Wales.
Amendments 46 and 53 clarify the regulation-making powers in clauses 43 and 46. They will allow regulations enforcing the prohibition on the export of livestock for slaughter, and regulations prohibiting or restricting the importation of dogs, cats or ferrets on welfare grounds, to provide that summary sheriffs as well as sheriffs and justices of the peace in Scotland can issue warrants to authorise entry into private dwellings.
Amendment 43 agreed to.
Amendments made: 44, in clause 42, page 25, line 13, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) cattle and other bovine animals,”
This amendment simplifies paragraph (a) of the definition of “relevant livestock”, and ensures that it includes steers.
Amendment 45, in clause 42, page 25, line 14, leave out from “horses” to end of line and insert “and other equine animals,”—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment simplifies paragraph (b) of the definition of “relevant livestock”.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Clause 42 is essential for ending unnecessary journeys of livestock and horses for slaughter and fattening, and for improving the welfare of those animals. The clause also removes provisions from the Animal Health Act 1981 in relation to the export of horses. The provisions were originally intended to prevent the export from Great Britain of low-value horses and ponies for slaughter on the continent.
Daniel Zeichner
I think we all welcome the end of exports of livestock for slaughter and fattening for slaughter. It has clearly rightly exercised many of our fellow citizens over many years. The numbers have of course declined, but there are still too many. This is an excellent opportunity to do something and we strongly support this part of the Bill. Excessive journey times in the shipment of live animals cause significant welfare harms, including the deprivation of food and water, lack of rest, extremes of temperature and humidity, handling by humans, exposure to novel environments, overcrowding, insufficient headroom and noise. There is still sadly the danger of animals being exported to countries where they are slaughtered in situations with standards that are significantly lower than the standards that apply in the UK. Consequently, the Government’s decision to bring this provision forward is welcome.
We thought that there should have been some additional provisions, and we have already had that discussion. There is more to be done and we are slightly worried— this has been pointed out by the British Veterinary Association—that the focus on exports has perhaps missed the point that the real issue is the length of the journey. I know that the Government are bringing forward measures for consultation to look at that, but that gives me the opportunity to point out—I suspect the Government would strongly agree—that there is a dearth of local abattoirs in this country. Animals are regularly required to travel longer distances to slaughter than many of us would like. That can cause significant harm.
We very much hope that the Minister will look at how best we can tackle that problem by re-establishing a local network of slaughterhouses in this country. On my summer tour around the country, which I am grateful to the Minister and her officials for helping me to secure, I was struck by the number of times that this point was raised. Many farmers across the country would like to find a way of returning to mixed farming, but the lack of a local abattoir is a major disincentive to that. I had exactly this conversation with a former colleague of the hon. Member for Keighley who made the point strongly to me. I suspect that many others have had exactly the same conversation. It is not an easy problem to solve, but it is pretty clear that it will need some sort of Government intervention. We would certainly do that, and I encourage the Government to do so in the meantime.
On that basis, we are delighted to support the prohibition of the export of livestock for slaughter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Power to make provision in connection with the enforcement of section 42
Amendment made: 46, in clause 43, page 27, line 6, leave out “or a” and insert “, summary sheriff or”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment adds a reference to a summary sheriff, in relation to warrants issued in Scotland.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Clause 43 provides us with the ability to introduce regulations to implement and enforce the ban on the export of live animals for slaughter and fattening. Powers of entry, inspection, search, seizure and/or detention will enable us fully to investigate any potential breaches.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Powers to amend or revoke retained direct EU legislation
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 44, page 27, line 15, at end insert—
“(b) any instrument containing provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.””
This amendment enables regulations under section 12(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to amend or revoke instruments made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (implementation of EU obligations etc).
Victoria Prentis
The amendments make changes to powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and to powers to make regulations under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. As we have heard, both Acts provide powers to promote animal welfare and introduce licensing and registration schemes for the keeping of animals. The amendments allow us to amend or revoke retained direct EU legislation or secondary legislation made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.
Previously, the UK shared competence with the EU to make legislation relating to animal welfare. The EU made a number of regulations on welfare matters that now form part of our statute book. The amendments will ensure that we can amend or revoke those regulations when we introduce our reforms. The enforcement of EU law was implemented through the power in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The Act was repealed following our departure from the EU, so it cannot now be used to amend or revoke regulations under that power. I should remind the Committee that animal welfare is a devolved matter, and the amendments will enable Scottish and Welsh Ministers to do likewise when exercising their own powers under the 2006 Acts.
Amendment 47 agreed to.
Amendments made: 48, in clause 44, page 27, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) In Schedule 1 to that Act (regulations under section 13), in paragraph 19 after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
(1A) In the case of consequential provision, the power under sub-paragraph (1) includes power to amend or revoke—
(a) any retained direct EU legislation;
(b) any instrument containing provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.””
This amendment enables regulations under section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to make consequential amendments or revocations of retained direct EU legislation and instruments made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.
Amendment 49, in clause 44, page 27, line 19, at end insert—
“(b) any instrument containing provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.””
This amendment enables regulations under section 26 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 to amend or revoke instruments made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.
Amendment 50, in clause 44, page 27, line 19, at end insert—
“(3) In section 51 of that Act (regulations under Part 2) after subsection (2) insert—
(2A) The consequential provision that may be made (by virtue of subsection (2)(a)) by regulations under section 27 includes provision amending or revoking—
(a) any retained direct EU legislation;
(b) any instrument containing provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.””—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment enables regulations under section 27 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 to make consequential amendments or revocations of retained direct EU legislation and instruments made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Clause 44 provides us with an important power. Section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and section 26 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 enable the UK, Welsh and Scottish Governments to make regulations that promote the welfare of animals. The clause amends those sections, giving us the ability to amend or revoke any retained direct EU legislation and to replace it with new regulations that promote animal welfare. I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Reduction in limit on non-commercial movement of pets
Olivia Blake
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 45, page 27, line 29, leave out “five” and insert “three”.
This amendment would restrict the maximum number of dogs, cats and ferrets that may enter Great Britain in a non-commercial motor vehicle to three.
Olivia Blake
This is my first Bill Committee as a Front-Bench spokesperson, so I am excited to be here. As a dog lover, this is an issue that is close to my heart. My two rescue dogs are the pride and joy of my life, and I know that many dog owners feel the same.
The amendment is very important. Clause 45 is about puppy smuggling, which we know is a lucrative business. In 2015, the Dogs Trust set up its puppy pilot project to offer support to puppies that have been illegally imported. The organisation calculates the total market value of the puppies that it has helped to be more than £2 million. However, this is not just about puppies, as the clause also covers cats and ferrets. They are in high demand, especially kittens, which provides a huge incentive for illegally importing them.
One way that animal smugglers avoid the authorities is by posing as legitimate owners of the animals as they cross a border. Currently, clause 45 proposes to crack down on this practice by limiting the number of animals that can be transported in a non-commercial vehicle to five, but we are concerned that it does not go far enough. The Government could make the law much stronger and more resistant to abuse by smugglers if they were to agree to our amendment.
As we heard in evidence, five seemed a strange number, given that a survey of a quarter of a million dog owners by the Dogs Trust found that 97.7% of respondents have three dogs or fewer. Others have estimated that around three quarters of dog owners have only one dog; roughly a fifth—18.9%—have two; and only 4% have three, so our amendment to reduce the number from five to three should be considered. Only a tiny fraction of dog owners have more animals than that. The idea that they would regularly travel across borders is a bit strange, given how five animals would fit in one vehicle. Strengthening the law would make it much harder and far less lucrative for puppy and animal smugglers involved in this cruel practice to operate. We should seize the moment that the Bill affords. I hope that the Minister will agree to our amendment today.
The Chair
Are there any other contributions? I know that members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have considered the issue.
Dr Hudson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I rise as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and as a veterinary surgeon. Opposition Members will probably be relieved that I rise in strong support of what they say. We need an evidence-based response, and the evidence that we on the EFRA Committee took from the Dogs Trust during our inquiry was powerful. I refer Members to our report on the movement of animals across borders, where we looked at a lot of the issues, from farm animals and horses to pets and so on. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam has said, the research suggests that 97.7% of owners have three dogs or fewer, so if we changed from five to three it would strengthen the legislation and make it a significant deterrent to the unscrupulous people who try to exploit loopholes in the law.
We took evidence from the British Veterinary Association as well. The Government could put in exemptions for people who are permanently relocating—they could apply for a special dispensation—but moving from five to three would strengthen the law.
Victoria Prentis
I welcome the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam to her first Committee. I am afraid I am going to resist the amendment while speaking to Government amendment 51. I appreciate the concerns raised about the number of pets that can be moved in a single non-commercial movement. I want to assure hon. Members that we completed extensive engagement with relevant groups, including authorised pet checkers, carriers, animal welfare organisations and veterinary bodies to determine a suitable limit. The aim was to strike a balance between disrupting the illegal trade, which we all want to do, while minimising the impact of genuine owners travelling with their pets—cats, dogs and ferrets. It is already a large change for a traveller to go from five pets per passenger to five per vehicle.
However, we have heard the arguments from across the House, and we would be willing to look at any further evidence that shows genuine pet owners would not be unduly impacted by a decrease to three pets per vehicle. I am particularly concerned about two pet owners travelling together with two dogs each, for example, but I am willing to look at evidence that hon. Members wish to send in, or to discuss it. If we decide to make the change at a later date, we could use the enabling power in clause 46, which allows us to make regulations on the importation of relevant animals on welfare grounds. In these circumstances, I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 51, in my name, simply ensures that consequential amendments are made in relation to the relevant Welsh regulations, as they are for Scotland and England.
Olivia Blake
I must say that I am disappointed. I will press the amendment to a vote because we think that the evidence was quite powerful. As was said, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have considered the question in a lot of detail and believe that this is the right way to go. I take the Minister’s point about people travelling together, but a balance must be struck between what could be seen as a loophole and a way of allowing this practice to continue, especially when we know how many puppies can come from one dog. There are large concerns around the issue and that this would remain as a potential loophole to allow puppy smuggling. I would ask the Minister to reflect again, but we will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Bad news. I have the casting vote, but I have an obligation not to vote in favour of an amendment that changes the Bill, even though I am on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—Neil, I love you. I will have to vote against the amendment, because I am obliged, as Chair, to do so. Unfortunately, the amendment falls.
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment made: 51, in clause 45, page 28, line 16, at end insert—
‘(9) In regulation 3(1)(b) of the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Wales) Regulations (S.I. 2011/2379 (W. 252))—
(a) in the English language text—
(i) at the end of sub-paragraph (i) for “or” substitute “and”;
(ii) for sub-paragraph (ii) substitute—
(ii) Article 5(4) of the Pets Regulation does not apply.”;
(b) in the Welsh language text—
(i) at the end of sub-paragraph (i) for “neu” substitute “a”;
(ii) for sub-paragraph (ii) substitute—
(ii) Nid yw Erthygl 5(4) o’r Rheoliad Anifeiliaid Anwes yn gymwys.’—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment makes the same consequential amendments in relation to the relevant Welsh regulations as are made by subsections (7) and (8) in relation to the English and Scottish regulations.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Thank you for your casting vote, Mr Davies. I would like to reiterate that we will continue to look at any evidence, and I am very happy to meet colleagues to discuss further. This is clearly an issue on which there are genuine differences of opinion.
Clause 45 limits the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that may be moved into Great Britain in a single non-commercial movement. There is evidence, as we all know, that commercial importers abuse our non-commercial pet travel rules to bring in lots of puppies at once for sale. The welfare of these puppies, as we have heard many times and as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee reminded us, is frequently compromised. The clause will help to prevent the misuse of these rules. The new limit will be five per vehicle or three per air or foot passenger. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Olivia Blake
I thought I had just made history with my first amendment. The Minister has obviously heard from across the House how important the issue is and that it warrants further consideration. I am disappointed that we did not win that vote.
Daniel Zeichner
Having moved some hundreds of amendments and never gotten that close, I am extremely jealous. Would my hon. Friend agree that the vote we have seen this afternoon reflects that there are many others in the House who will come to a similar conclusion, and that it would be sensible for the Government to move sooner rather than later on their position?
Olivia Blake
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On Second Reading we heard many concerns from colleagues across the House. I ask the Minister to look again as quickly as possible to come up with a conclusion. That is all I have to say on the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Powers relating to importation of certain dogs, cats and ferrets
Olivia Blake
I beg to move amendment 117, in clause 46, page 28, line 21, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the banning or restriction of importation of relevant animals which are below a specific age, have been mutilated or are below a specified number of days pregnant.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 46, page 28, line 23, after “age” insert—
“, with six months being the minimum age”.
This amendment would ban the importation into Great Britain of dogs, cats and ferrets aged six months or less.
Amendment 118, in clause 46, page 28, line 25, after “pregnant” insert—
“, with 42 days being the maximum length of pregnancy for cats and dogs”.
This amendment would prohibit the importation of heavily pregnant cats and dogs.
Government amendment 52.
New clause 14—Commercial movement of pregnant cats and dogs—
“The importation of pregnant cats and dogs for commercial purposes is prohibited.”
This new clause would prohibit the commercial importation of pregnant cats and dogs.
New clause 18—Prohibition on importation of cats and dogs with fashion-based mutilations—
“(1) Cats and dogs with fashion-based mutilations may not be imported into the UK.
(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘fashion-based mutilations’ include—
(a) cropped ears,
(b) docked tails, and
(c) declawed paws.”
This new clause would prohibit dogs and cats that had been subjected to ‘fashion-based’ mutilations such as cropped ears, docked tails and declawed paws being imported into the UK.
New clause 24—Healthcare requirements for imported cats and dogs—
“The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for—
(a) compulsory tick treatment for all cats and dogs imported into the UK in non-commercial movements; and
(b) compulsory rabies blood tests for all cats and dogs prior to importation into the UK.”
New clause 25—Imported cats and dogs: rabies vaccination—
“Cats and Dogs may not be imported into the UK for a 12 week period after receiving a rabies vaccination.”
Olivia Blake
The Bill is a bit of a mixed bag of random measures, but it offers an opportunity to speed up the approach to animal welfare. Amendment 117 is a policy of Labour’s animal welfare manifesto. It is frustrating that the Bill has been half-hearted in its approach. I am afraid that we will be seeing procrastination on the issue even now. Although I welcome the steps in the right direction, the Government could go a lot further, which our amendment seeks to do. We want to see it in the Bill.
Having a firm commitment in the primary legislation is important in order to get to grips with the cruelty inflicted on not only very young and pregnant animals but animals that have been mutilated by their owners. Rather than saying that the Government “may” prohibit or restrict the importation of animals below a specified age that have been mutilated, or that are a certain number of days pregnant, the legislation should say “must”. I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House agrees on the importance of taking action on that issue, so let us get on with it and ensure that it is in the primary legislation.
The demand for pets such as dogs and cats is booming, and some of the biggest profits have been made on very young animals. The number of young animals that are imported legally continues to grow every year. Often puppies, kittens and others have been bred in horrendous conditions, and face further cruelty as they are transported over borders. They can be subjected to long journeys in cramped conditions, and when they arrive few questions are asked about where they have come from, or how they or their mother and father were treated.
The first aim of amendment 2 is to ensure that young animals that are legally imported and sold in the UK have not been subject to cruel practices such as puppy farming abroad. It also affects the illegal international trade of young animals. More and more we are seeing serious organised criminal groups involved in animal smuggling, generating massive profits through illegal imports. Just as in the legal trade, the biggest money is often made from the very young animals because of the cuteness factor, further incentivising smuggling.
For example, puppy smugglers exploit the fact that it is very difficult to tell just by looking whether a very young puppy is over 15 weeks. One outcome of the amendment would therefore be to aid law enforcers in identifying underage puppies, because it is a lot easier to tell the difference between an underage puppy at six months than at 15 weeks. There is also a much smaller market for animals that are around six months old. That makes it less profitable for smugglers to pass off animals at four or five months, because their market value is far less than that of an animal at around 15 weeks.
The amendment would improve the welfare of extremely young animals to ensure that the UK market is not complicit in animal welfare violations, and would make life harder for smugglers. That is why it is backed by a huge range of stakeholders, and is already law in countries such as the USA, which has a ban on imports of puppies under six months old. I hope that the Government will back that element of the amendments, and write it into the primary legislation.
We have discussed the lucrative smuggling market and some of the methods that are used to illegally import animals into the country. In addition to the forms of deception that we have already dealt with, another way of getting puppies into the country is by importing pregnant bitches that give birth to puppies in the UK. Again, it is a very lucrative market. The approximate total market value of the puppies born to pregnant bitches admitted to the Dogs Trust through its puppy pilot scheme, which I mentioned earlier, is around £400,000.
The practice has obvious detrimental impacts on the wellbeing of both the bitch and the puppies. For that reason, amendment 118 calls for the prohibition of importing heavily pregnant bitches, by which we mean those more than 42 days pregnant. That would enhance the welfare of the animals and crackdown on the activities of smugglers, while acknowledging that sometimes the non-commercial movement of animals in the early stages of pregnancy is unavoidable.
I will talk about some of the new clauses—
Olivia Blake
Great. I think Members on both sides can agree that the practice of moving pregnant cats and dogs across borders to avoid checks on the welfare of the puppies or kittens is abhorrent. We have already said that it might be unavoidable in some non-commercial circumstances; however, there is no commercial reason to move a pregnant dog or cat across a border, subjecting it to a long and arduous journey that will, in all likelihood, have a negative impact on its wellbeing and welfare. New clause 14 therefore seeks to end the commercial importation of pregnant cats and dogs. There is no justification for it; the loophole in the law is just being utilised by unscrupulous illegal importers.
People have now got wise to illegal puppy imports and are insisting on seeing the mother of the puppy. That is one of the simple steps that the many people who are seeking to own a puppy can undertake. Unfortunately, that has led to the importation of pregnant bitches to ensure that prospective buyers can see the mother before they buy. It is really quite sad, because the bitch is then returned to her country of origin to breed again. This puppy farm on wheels is a horrific situation for the dogs involved. This new clause would end the practice—a move that we would support fully.
I hope that new clause 18 will be welcomed. It should be uncontroversial; the practices outlined in it are undoubtedly cruel. This new clause seeks to ban the importation of dogs and cats that have been subjected to fashion-based mutilations, such as cropped ears, docked tails and declawed paws. Despite being illegal in the UK, those cruel practices are still carried out in other parts of the world. However, it is currently legal to import a dog that has been abused in that way. That is clearly wrong. It impacts on the wellbeing of animals domestically and can act as a smokescreen for those who illegally mutilate animals in the UK. Unfortunately, we are seeing those kinds of mutilations more regularly. For example, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals estimates that calls about ear cropping have risen by 621% since 2015, which is absolutely horrifying. Sadly, it is also the case that fashion mutilations often go hand in hand with other kinds of animal abuse and form part of a pattern of mistreatment. The new clause would stop dog and cat imports fuelling animal abuse internationally and would make it harder for anyone to abuse domestically.
To put it simply, we also support objectives to reintroduce tick treatment and for all dogs and cats to have rabies blood tests prior to being imported, as covered in new clause 24.
Dr Hudson
I rise in support of what the hon. Lady has said, and again I refer hon. Members back to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report entitled “Moving animals across borders”. We on that Committee took significant amounts of evidence, and we saw some of that last week on the Bill Committee as well. I understand what the Government are doing with the Bill, and I very much support the Bill and the Government’s wanting to get things on the statute book quickly and then have the powers in secondary legislation to tweak and amend things as we go further on. I firmly believe, when it comes to the health and welfare of animals, that we can crack on and do things. We have left the European Union.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam made the point about tick treatment. That was stopped in 2014. We have the power to reintroduce that treatment of animals before they come into the country, and that will protect those animals travelling and protect the animals in this country as well. The concept of pre-import screening and checking of animals, before they come into the country, has huge implications for the health and welfare of those animals and animals in this country and also, indirectly, people in this country. As we have seen—we have also taken evidence on this—there are diseases potentially coming in that have zoonotic potential. I am thinking of things such as canine brucellosis. Animals being imported from countries such as Romania and Macedonia are potentially coming in with a disease that can be transmitted to people.
I urge the Government to act on this. I have been submitting written questions, as the Minister well knows. She mentioned the other day that I am quite repetitive on it. I will keep banging on about it. As I said, I have been submitting written questions, and there are no plans to make changes. I really encourage the Government to crack on and do this to protect the animals coming in and protect the animals in this country.
I firmly support the suggestion in the amendment to specify six months in the Bill. Another issue is stipulating what we mean by “heavily pregnant” animals. At the moment, bringing in animals is illegal in the last 10% of gestation; Dogs Trust, for instance, has suggested that we could extend that to the last 30% of gestation. I think that we are all agreed on mutilations, and as I said on Second Reading and many other times in this House. Animal welfare unites us in humanity, and we abhor some of these procedures carried out in other parts of the world, such as the ear-cropping of dogs and the removal of cats’ claws, and are stipulating that those procedures are not acceptable in this country or for animals brought into this country for sale. I very much support that.
Daniel Zeichner
I was tempted to push for a vote just now, but we can continue our discussion.
There is plenty to discuss, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam for moving the amendment and then speaking to the group so forcefully and powerfully. However, I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, who speaks on the basis of huge knowledge. I think that what he is saying—he said it on Second Reading, as did others from across the House—is that there is acknowledgement of the widespread public interest in and concern about these issues. While I can understand from a kind of technical point of view why the Government might want to do this thing through regulation, the politics of it are very clear: people expect this to be done now. We are giving the Government the opportunity to do it now through these amendments. I have lost count of the number of Government Members who raised these issues, so the Government ought to be able to see what is coming. It is a question of how to deal with this matter in as graceful a manner as possible because, frankly, I do not think there is any dispute about it.
When we consider some of these practices, many of us find them extraordinary. Why would anyone declaw a cat? I do not think that anyone here could possibly imagine why anyone would do that.
One of the issues that we will come back to in some of the later debates is that there has been a lot of emphasis on puppy smuggling—rightly so. However, there is a slight sense on the part of organisations representing cats that there is a danger that those who seek to gain a commercial benefit out of these awful practices will just shift to other practices. I know there is some debate about how likely that is. Nevertheless, we should be mindful of the fact that many of our constituents are looking at this Committee closely and will want to know why we are not being as robust as we could be to guard against all these eventualities.
I do not have the expertise on this issue that some other members of the Committee do, but when I listen to the accounts and to the arguments being put, I find it hard to imagine why we would not want to introduce all the things we are discussing into the Bill as speedily as possible.
We will pursue this matter relentlessly, through every opportunity open to us, because we think that is where the majority of feeling in the House is, so the Government would, as I say, be sensible to move as swiftly as possible. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that, because I cannot see any reason not to do this thing as swiftly as we can.
Victoria Prentis
Neatly done, Mr Davies.
I agree—indeed, it is clear—that there is a great deal of consensus across the House on our manifesto commitment to crack down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies. Where we differ slightly is how to bring that crackdown about. I want to reassure all Members that I am absolutely committed to bringing in further restrictions in regulations.
One of the reasons we are using regulations is to enable Government to act in a way that is relatively nimble. What we have found is that after we restricted the import of puppies, the criminals started to import pregnant bitches instead.
What we need to do is to remain one step ahead of the criminals. We feel that the best and speediest way to do that is through secondary legislation. There is absolutely nothing half-hearted about our determination to crack down on illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies. I am determined to do that in a fair way, but as quickly as we possibly can.
Daniel Zeichner
I hear what the Minister says, and I do not doubt her sincerity, but I do not understand how it can be quicker to do this through secondary legislation, nor do I understand why the two are mutually exclusive. It is quite possible to do both; I encourage her to do so.
Victoria Prentis
We are taking the steps we are taking today, if the Committee votes for them, in the Bill, which we hope will soon become an Act. We have not taken the foot off the accelerator for organising the regulations.
Before we bring forward regulations, we consult with those involved in the sector, to make sure that the regulations hit the spot, in so far as we can. In August of this year, we launched our consultation to seek views on the new restrictions that we are proposing, which are very much in line with the views expressed by hon. Members across the House. The proposals include raising the minimum age that dogs can be imported from 15 weeks to six months, for all the reasons that have been given. It is a lot easier for a Border Control checker to see if a dog is six months old or still a puppy. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned the cuteness factor. I do not think they lose the cuteness factor, but on the commercial market, puppies areó more saleable than adult dogs. That is absolutely the Government’s intention.
We also stated our proposal to prohibit the commercial importation and non-commercial movement of heavily pregnant dogs, specifically those over 42 days pregnant, into Great Britain. We needed to get that right. I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said in last week’s sitting and what I have heard him say before—I do not mean that critically—about the difficulty of checking gestation periods. We have to get this right and make sure that it is operable, easy for checkers to check and will deter criminals.
Daniel Zeichner
I am sorry to labour the point. Of course consultation is always a great thing, but I think the Minister has made it quite clear what she believes needs to be done. I am trying to imagine what kind of consultation response it would take to undo all this weight of evidence from so many experts. I cannot see that happening. I am genuinely baffled as to why there is a problem here.
Victoria Prentis
It is true that my Department places a great weight on consultation—indeed, it has to, under the rules set out in various pieces of legislation. I do not think we were wrong to do so in this particular case. There are difficult issues here, the bitch’s stage of pregnancy being one of them. I was just coming on to proposals to prohibit the import of dogs with cropped ears and tails. We all agree that these practices are abhorrent, but we have to make sure that we are not inadvertently making a problem—for example, for dogs that are already owned or rescue dogs that have been rescued from inappropriate ownership. It is important that we consult and get it right, but Members should not take that as any indication that we are going slowly. We really are not.
The evidence that we have seen to date, not least that which was gathered in the consultation, suggests that the import of young, heavily pregnant or mutilated animals is mainly an issue for dogs. We are therefore initially focusing our efforts on dogs, and we consulted on dogs this year. However, I reassure members of the Committee who feel we are being cattist in this matter, that there is an enabling power in clause 46 that allows us to expand the regulations to improve the welfare of dogs, cats and ferrets in future, should we gather evidence that that is necessary.
The consultation closed on 16 October. We are currently analysing the responses and will publish a summary in due course. I hope hon. Members feel reassured by our proposals, which make it clear how seriously we take the welfare issues with this trade. It is important that we consider the views of the public and interested groups before we make a final decision on new restrictions, although I would hope that the text of what we agreed on gives a fairly clear indication of the direction of travel of the Government. We need to ensure that the measures we introduce are necessary and proportionate and that there are no unintended consequences.
Dr Hudson
I appreciate the Minister’s comments that the Government are listening and consulting. I recognise and applaud that, because it provides an evidence base: the Government are casting out for opinions and stakeholders will get back to them.
There is also an evidence base about health treatments for dogs coming in with regards to the tick treatment that was stopped in 2014. There is scientific evidence that a dog in Essex, for instance, picked up a tick and contracted an exotic disease called babesiosis. That particular dog had never travelled out of the country, so another dog must have come into the country, or gone away and come back, with a tick onboard that it shed. The dog then took that tick onboard and contracted an exotic disease.
That evidence base makes it clear that we can act and put in place tighter guidelines to protect our biosecurity. A benefit of being a United Kingdom of islands is that we have a biosecurity barrier that we can and should strengthen for the animal population.
Victoria Prentis
I turn to new clauses 24 and 25, which relate to the health requirements of imports of non-commercial dogs and cats—that was a well-timed intervention. I reassure hon. Members that any regulations needed to introduce preventive health measures necessary to protect animal or public health due to the movement of pets into this country could already be introduced under existing powers to make regulations, including article 19 of the pets regulation—regulation 576/2013 as retained—or section 10 of the Animal Health Act 1981.
In relation to ticks, on which I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border is something of an expert, it is true that we have seen small numbers of localised infestations of non-native ticks in recent years. It is also true that the Government strongly encourage pet owners to treat their dogs against picking up ticks wherever they can. I look forward to working with him further on the issue and I know that he will be talking to the chief veterinary officer in the next few weeks to discuss his views as to why we need to deal with the problem now.
In relation to rabies, there is already a requirement for all pets entering GB to be vaccinated against rabies, with a minimum 21-day wait period. We operate one of the most rigorous and robust pet travel checking regimes in Europe. All pets entering GB on approved routes undergo 100% documentary checks, which includes checking vaccination status. In addition, recent quantitative risk assessments have concluded that the risk of a pet animal with rabies entering the UK under the pet travel rules is very low. It is obviously good and to be applauded that our rabies status is as it is and I do not consider that further requirements are necessary in this area.
Finally, I turn to amendment 52 in my name, which amends clause 46 to ensure that we can set out exemptions to any prohibitions or restrictions brought in under the clause and set out a permit system through which to issue such exemptions. It will ensure that the new prohibitions do not have an unfair impact on individuals who need to travel with their pet under exceptional circumstances—for example, moving permanently to GB or because of a natural disaster. I ask the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam to withdraw amendment 117.
Olivia Blake
It has been an interesting debate, and many concerns have been raised by Members on both sides of the Committee. I completely agree with everything that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said about the risk of zoonotic diseases and their increase. Ticks can cause horrific diseases in animals and humans—it is equally important to consider that risk. It is a biosecurity issue that we should take a lot more seriously.
The Chair
I have the casting vote, and I am obliged to vote for no change, which is a vote for the Noes.
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: 118, in clause 46, page 28, line 25, after pregnant insert
“, with 42 days being the maximum length of pregnancy for cats and dogs”.—(Daniel Zeichner.)
This amendment would prohibit the importation of heavily pregnant cats and dogs.
The Chair
I have the casting vote, and I am obliged to vote no.
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendments made: 52, in clause 46, page 28, line 25, at end insert—
“(2A) The regulations may—
(a) provide that a prohibition or restriction is subject to specified exemptions, including an exemption in cases where a permit issued under the regulations is in force,
(b) make provision for and in connection with applications for permits and the determination of such applications, and
(c) require a specified fee to be paid on the making of such an application.”
This amendment provides that regulations under clause 46(1) may contain exemptions, including exemptions applying where a permit is held, and may make provision about permits (including applications for permits, the determination of applications and fees).
Amendment 53, in clause 46, page 29, line 37, leave out “or a” and insert “, summary sheriff or”—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment adds a reference to a summary sheriff, in relation to warrants issued in Scotland.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
When the UK harmonised its pet movement rules with the EU in 2012, we saw a significant increase in pet movements into Great Britain. Evidence from stakeholders suggests that that also led to a considerable increase in the illegal trade in puppies, whose welfare is, as we heard, frequently compromised. Clause 46 provides the powers to crack down on puppy smuggling and the low-welfare movement of pets. The clause provides powers to introduce restrictions on the importation of pets on welfare grounds, as well as powers to set out the associated enforcement process, including offences with the appropriate penalties.
We have had an interesting and useful debate. We were well informed by our evidence sessions, by evidence submitted in our extensive consultation launched in August, and by the excellent report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. As we move forward, it is clear that Members on both sides of the House are committed to these improvements, which ought to crack down on illegal puppy smuggling. I will look at how we can speed up the work going on alongside the Bill—the reply to the consultation, publishing the evidence received in the consultation, and work on drafting the regulations—to ensure that the twin tracks of the Bill and the regulations go hand in hand, so far as is possible. That ought to provide reassurance across the House that the Government are extremely keen to crack down on this illegal trade.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Heather Wheeler.)
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tobacco Control Plan
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when not speaking in the debate, in line with current Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. I remind Members that they are asked by the Commission to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. This can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room. That is particularly important today—it is so cold in this room that I do not blame you for huddling together. If any of you wish to put extra clothing on or to use a coat as a blanket, please do so.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the delivery of a new Tobacco Control Plan.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone—I believe for the first time in this place. I speak as, and declare an interest as, the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. We welcomed the Government’s announcement of the new tobacco control plan, and we welcomed that it would be published this year, to deliver the Government’s smoke-free by 2030 ambition. I do not want to put any pressure on my hon. Friend the Minister, but she does not have long to achieve the first ambition. The Government’s ambition to reduce smoking rates to 5% or below, making smoking obsolete, is one that all of us in the all-party parliamentary group share. I believe that will be endorsed on an all-party basis this morning, because it is clearly a great way to ensure the health of the nation.
For me, this is deeply personal. Both of my parents died of cancer caused by smoking. My late mother was only 47 when she died of lung and throat cancer, as she was a very heavy smoker for most of her life. I do not want to see families go through what my family had to go through during those terrible days. For me, it is a lifetime ambition to ensure that people understand the risks of smoking, the damage to their health and the damage to their families.
The all-party parliamentary group is keen to support the delivery of the ambition of a smoke-free Britain, which is why, in June this year, we published a report setting out our recommendations for the tobacco control plan for England. Those recommendations were endorsed by more than 50 organisations, including the Royal College of Physicians, Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation. On behalf of the APPG, I am pleased to welcome my hon. Friend the Public Health Minister to her new post, and indeed to welcome her opposite number; to put our recommendations on the record; and to give the Minister the chance to respond to those views.
The APPG has a long-term track record of acting as a critical friend to the Government on the tobacco control agenda. I am confident that this collaborative and constructive relationship will continue. Although smoking rates in my constituency are lower than the English average, there is no room for complacency. In Harrow, more than one in 10 people still smoke and smoking kills around 250 people a year. That is obviously far too many. In 2018-19, there were 1,566 smoking-attributable hospital admissions and 370 emergency admissions for chronic respiratory disease, which is caused almost entirely by smoking. That is in one constituency, so imagine what smoking does to the national health service up and down the country.
Research presented to the all-party parliamentary group shows that, on average, smokers are likely to need social care a decade earlier than non-smokers, and particularly never-smokers. Smoking-related disease and disability make it hard to carry out normal daily activities such as getting dressed, walking across a room and making a meal. Most of us take these things for granted, but we should not.
The importance of the smoke-free 2030 ambition is clear. As the Minister herself stated recently,
“tobacco continues to account for the biggest share of avoidable premature death in this country. It contributes half the difference in life expectancy between richest and poorest.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 621.]
More than 70,000 people died from smoking last year in England alone. For every person killed by smoking, at least another 30 are living with serious smoking-related illnesses.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward this debate. On the point about the 70,000 deaths, is it not important to understand that that is year after year after year? Would he set that in contrast with the awful toll we have had from covid and the terrible restrictions that we have necessarily placed upon the population of this country, and agree with me that getting rid of this horrible substance would be far less of an intrusion on people’s liberties than the sort of things we have seen over the past 18 months? Over time, that would have a far greater impact on health, wellbeing and people’s ability to go about their daily lives. It would reduce the burden on the national health service very substantially indeed, and address the health inequalities that sadly mean the life expectancy of the richest and poorest in this country are currently separated by upwards of 10 years.
Bob Blackman
I could not have put it better myself. My right hon. Friend quite clearly makes the comparison between covid-19 and smoking. People cannot help catching covid, but when they smoke they make the choice as to whether they inflict life-changing circumstances on themselves.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend, I had a parent who died in their 40s from throat cancer. As we try to migrate 7 million people away from burnt tobacco, the challenge is to move them to less harmful forms of nicotine. Their addiction is to the nicotine; they crave nicotine, not the burning of tobacco. If we can make these transitions, we can reduce harm at a much quicker rate.
Bob Blackman
My hon. Friend is quite right. Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs on the market, if not the most addictive, and perfectly legal to consume. The issue is whether someone, once addicted to nicotine, can quit. The damage is done not necessary by the nicotine, but by the delivery mechanism by which someone gets the nicotine.
Anything that reduces the risk of cancer or other related diseases has got to be good news. We can migrate people and encourage them to quit. Ideally, they give up completely. However, because it is so addictive they may need help and assistance to do that. Vaping and non-heated tobacco are ways of migrating people to safer means of delivering the nicotine they desire.
Taking up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), ending smoking is essential if we are to level up the nation’s health after the pandemic. We need to reduce health inequalities between rich and poor, and increase healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035, in line with the Government’s manifesto commitments.
As well as being necessary, tobacco control measures are popular with voters for every main party, including the Conservative party, which both my hon. Friend the Minister and I represent. Results from the annual YouGov survey of over 10,000 adults in England, funded by Action on Smoking and Health, show that more than three quarters of the public support the Government’s smoke-free 2030 ambition, and eight out of 10 members of the public support Government intervention to limit smoking.
The Government have the full support of the APPG in delivering the smoke-free 2030 ambition. However, as the Government stated in the 2019 prevention Green Paper, achieving that ambition will require “bold action.” Inequalities in smoking rates have grown in recent years, not shrunk. In order to be smoke-free by 2030, we need to reduce smoking by two thirds in just a decade—we have only nine years left to achieve that—and by three quarters for smokers in routine and manual occupations. At current rates of decline, Cancer Research UK has estimated we will miss the target by seven years, and double that for the poorest in society.
There are still nearly 6 million smokers in England. We will only achieve a smoke-free 2030 by motivating more smokers to make quit attempts, using the most effective quitting aids, while also reducing the number of children and young adults who start smoking each year. With 1,500 people dying from smoking-related diseases every week and less than a decade to achieve a smoke-free 2030, there is no time to waste.
Disappointingly, with the end of the year in sight, there is still no sign of the tobacco control plan that was promised this year. My first question to my hon. Friend the Minister, therefore, is whether she can she set out a timeline for the publication of the next tobacco control plan. But the tobacco control plan is only as strong as the measures it includes. That is why the APPG was disappointed that the Government rejected the amendments to the Health and Care Bill tabled by my friend the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), and supported by myself and other officers of the APPG, in Committee.
Those amendments would have closed the loopholes in the regulations that expose children to the insidious marketing tactics of the tobacco industry, provided funding for tobacco control and strengthened the regulation of tobacco. As it stands, the Bill fails to include a single mention of smoking or tobacco and represents a major missed opportunity to introduce key policies for achieving a smoke-free 2030. That is why we have retabled the amendments on Report. I hope the Government will look at them sympathetically, because the Bill is the ideal opportunity for them to deliver their 2019 commitment to finish the job and introduce the legislation that is needed if we are to achieve a smoke-free 2030. My second question is whether the Minister will commit to considering the adoption of tobacco amendments to the Health and Care Bill on Report.
My next area is the “polluter pays” levy. The bold action that the Government acknowledge is needed cannot be taken without investment. The Health Foundation estimates that a minimum £1 billion is needed to restore public health funding to its 2015 levels, with more needed to level up public health across the country. While there was some positive news on tobacco taxation in the recent spending review, which we welcomed, unfortunately the Government opted not to increase the public health grant to local authorities. As a consequence, we need to establish new sources of funding.
The Government promised to consider a US-style “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers in the 2019 prevention Green Paper. This scheme would mirror the approach taken in the United States, where user fee legislation raises $711 million annually from the tobacco manufacturers, with the funds then used to cover the cost of stop smoking campaigns, tobacco control policy development, implementation and enforcement.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I must say that I am opposed to punitive taxation policies, because I do not think they work. Does the hon. Member accept that tobacco companies already pay the Government £13 billion? An additional levy could lead—and most likely would lead, as the evidence shows—to a significant increase in criminality, because instead of paying for taxable product, people will buy smuggled product. Is that not a huge worry that he has about introducing a levy?
Bob Blackman
I will come to some of these issues in a few moments, if the hon. Gentleman will be patient and let me build the case. Obviously, it has been estimated by ASH that the funding needed for a comprehensive tobacco control plan to deliver a smoke-free 2030 would cost around £266 million for England and £315 million in total for the UK. A levy could raise around £700 million from the tobacco manufacturers, to be spent on tobacco control and other public health initiatives. The devolved Governments would also have the ability to opt into the scheme, should they so wish.
Such a scheme is more than justified in response to market failure that allows an industry, whose products kill consumers when used as intended, to make exorbitant profits. While net operating profits for most consumer staples, such as food, beverages and household goods, stands at 12% to 20%, Imperial Brands in the UK enjoyed net operating profits of 71% in 2019. That is £71 in profit for every £100 in sales. In 2018, it is estimated that tobacco manufacturers made over £900 million in profits in the UK alone.
Sir Charles Walker
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) makes an interesting point about taxation. Would it be possible for politicians, with all their imagination, to use the taxation system to encourage cigarette and tobacco companies to transition their products away from combustible tobacco to less dangerous nicotine-delivery mechanisms?
Bob Blackman
My hon. Friend makes a good point; clearly, research could be undertaken to establish how we could use the taxation system to transition people in that way. I personally welcome the escalators that have been put on tobacco products and continued by the Chancellor.
Despite the enormous profitability for those companies, major tobacco manufacturers pay very little profit tax in the UK. That probably reflects their global engagement in diverse and elaborate tax avoidance strategies, which allowed Imperial Brands to lower its UK corporate tax bill by an estimated £1.8 billion over the past 10 years, and British American Tobacco to reduce its bill by an estimated £760 million over the same period. Public support is strong for such a measure, with 77% of the public supporting making tobacco manufacturers pay a levy or licence fee to the Government for measures to help smokers quit and to prevent young people from taking up smoking, and just 6% opposing it.
The covid-19 pandemic has put huge pressure on public finances, and there is a desperate need for bold, properly funded policies to level up public health after the pandemic. Our recommendations on the “polluter pays” approach are backed up by a much more detailed policy paper on how this would work, which we commend to the Minister and her officials. Will the Minister commit that the recommendations for a “polluter pays” mechanism will be included in any consideration of how the tobacco control plan should be funded?
My last major point is about raising the age of sale. If England is to be smoke-free by 2030, we need to prevent people from starting smoking at the most susceptible ages—when they are adolescents and young adults. Two thirds of those who try smoking go on to become regular smokers, only a third of whom succeed in quitting during their lifetime. Experimentation is rare after the age of 21. Therefore, the more we can do to prevent exposure and access to tobacco before that age, the more young people we can stop from becoming hooked into this deadly addiction.
Raising the age of sale from 16 to 18 was associated with a 30% reduction in smokers aged 16 and 17 in England, as was increasing the age of sale to 21 in the United States among 18 to 20-year-olds. University College London estimates that increasing the legal age of sale from 18 to 21 would immediately result in 95,000 fewer smokers aged 18 to 20 in 2022, and an additional 77,000 fewer smokers over the long term, to 2030. That would reduce smoking prevalence among 18 to 20-year-olds to 2%, compared to 9.6% without the intervention. It would be simple and inexpensive to introduce, as ongoing enforcement costs are already factored into the existing age regulations. This is the regulatory measure that would have the biggest impact on reducing smoking prevalence among young adults.
Compared to non-smokers aged 18 to 20, smokers in this age group are more likely to be from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. As such, the effect in increasing the age of sale would be particularly beneficial in poorer and more disadvantaged communities. It could also have knock-on benefits. Smoking during pregnancy, for example, is concentrated among young, disadvantaged mothers, and whether a woman smokes during pregnancy is significantly affected by her wider environment. Discouraging experimentation and the uptake of smoking among young, disadvantaged people would prevent smoking in young women who may go on to become pregnant, as well as their male partners, friends and family members. That then reduces the likelihood that young women and their children will be exposed to toxic second-hand smoke during, or indeed after, pregnancy.
In keeping with the current age of sale legislation, raising the age to 21 is not about criminalising those under that age, but about making it much more difficult for them to get hold of tobacco. Increasing the age of sale is supported by a majority of the adult population, with 63% in favour and just 15% opposed. The support is consistent among Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters—I do not have figures for the Democratic Unionist party. That is also true for those aged 18 to 24, among whom 54% support the measure and just 24% oppose, and for 11 to 18-year-olds, of whom 59% support and 14% oppose.
Given the strength of the evidence and the public consensus that this is the right thing to do, I and other members of the all-party parliamentary group urge the Government to launch a public consultation on raising the age of sale. It is particularly important to encourage children and young adults, who will be most affected by the policy, to participate.
Experience of smoke-free law implementation in England in 2007 showed that a public consultation can help raise awareness and bolster compliance with legislation. For example, 98% of all premises and vehicles inspected in the first nine months after the law was implemented complied fully with the legislation, and 81% of business decision makers thought the law was a good idea.
When the Government rejected the amendment to the Health and Care Bill that would have provided the power to raise the age of sale to 21 by regulation, they said that they would like to review the evidence base for increasing the age of sale to 21 in more detail. That seems to me and others a very good idea. The best way to do that would be by carrying out a consultation, which is what we are calling for in the revised amendment on Report. I urge the Minister not to wait for the debate but to give her support to the consultation now.
My final question for the Minister is this: will she give a commitment to conducting a consultation on raising the age of sale from 18 to 21 within three months of Royal Assent of the Health and Care Bill? That brings me to my conclusion, Mr Bone. I welcome the opportunity to have this debate and look forward to contributions from right hon. and hon Members and the replies from the Front Benchers.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing the debate and for his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, of which I am vice-chair.
Two years after the Government stated their ambition to make England smoke-free by 2030, projections show that they will miss that target by seven years, and double that for the poorest in society. Despite a promise of further action on tobacco, we are still waiting for the new tobacco control plan, which the Government pledged to publish this year. In the absence of that new plan, the Health and Care Bill is a timely opportunity to take the first step towards a smoke-free 2030.
Despite the urgency of the issue and my best efforts in Committee, the Health and Care Bill fails to make a single mention of tobacco or smoking. To correct that oversight, I tabled amendments to the Bill, based on recommendations made by the APPG on smoking and health, including proposals for a “polluter pays” levy, health warnings on cigarettes and inside packaging, and to close the loophole allowing e-cigarettes to be marketed at children. Those measures are all low-cost or revenue-generating, are popular with the public and could be implemented quickly and easily by the Government. Although the Government expressed support for the principle behind the proposals, they rejected every single one, saying that they wanted to wait and see the evidence.
The Government have cited the need to wait for the publication of the post-implementation reviews of the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 and the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. The Government were required by law to publish those by May 2021. That has now drifted to an aim to publish by the end of the year. Will the Minister say how much longer we will have to wait for the Government to start taking action to deliver the smoke-free 2030 ambition? She should know that if the APPG’s amendments are not adopted in the House of Commons, they will be retabled in the other place.
Today I want to briefly make the case for my proposals and address the Government’s arguments against them. The first proposal is to include health warnings on cigarettes and cigarette papers. Substantial research supports their implementation, and they are already under consideration in Canada, Australia and Scotland. Such warnings would be cheap and easy to implement through a simple amendment to the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015. The Government said they were sympathetic to the aims of the measure, but they are not willing to adopt it, citing the need to conduct further research and for more evidence. Warnings such as “smoking kills” have been shown to be effective on billboards and tobacco packs, so why would they not be effective on cigarette sticks, too? Adding warnings to cigarette sticks is also important because young people in particular are likely to begin smoking with an individual cigarette rather than packs. There have also been at least eight peer-reviewed academic studies published since 2015 that specifically looked at warnings on sticks and found them to be effective, particularly in making cigarettes less attractive to younger adolescents and never-smokers.
Cigarette pack inserts that provide health information have been required in Canada since 2000. Substantial evidence shows that they are effective, and research supports their use in the UK, too. The Government have already acknowledged in the prevention Green Paper that there could be a positive role for inserts giving quitting advice in tobacco products. Pack inserts are easy and cheap to introduce and, as the Government have acknowledged, could be implemented by a simple revision of the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015. Again, the Government refuse to adopt the amendment, citing the need for further research and public consultation and to wait for the recommendations of the post-implementation review of the SPOT regulations, yet there is no guarantee that the review will contain concrete recommendations. Indeed, the 2019 review failed to do that. My concern is that the measure needed will just get kicked into the long grass, putting the 2030 ambition at risk.
There are currently no controls on the use of branding to promote e-cigarette products, some of which, particularly e-liquids, are branded in a way that is clearly attractive to children through the use of bright colours, sweet names and cartoon characters. Research by YouGov for ASH found that in 2021, 3.3% of 11 to 17-year-old never-smokers have tried e-cigarettes once or twice; 0.5% use them less than weekly; and 0.2% use them more than once a week. Although those percentages seem low, it still amounts to 174,900 never-smokers trying e-cigarettes. Another 26,500 carried on using them, and 10,600 used them more than once a week. The ASH YouGov survey of adults and young people found that standardising the packaging of e-cigarettes and refills reduces the appeal of vaping to young people, particularly young children, while having little impact on adult smokers’ interest in using the products to quit smoking. Frustratingly, the amendment was voted down by the Government in Committee.
A further issue that must be addressed is that although it is illegal for e-cigarettes to be sold to children under 18, it is not illegal for them to be given out as free samples to under-18s. That loophole fails to deliver on the spirit of the legislation, which is designed to protect children from nicotine addiction. Clearly, the legislation needs amending to ban the sale and free distribution of any consumer nicotine product to under-18s. The Government inexplicably voted down that proposal in Committee. They said that they did not have a firm or robust evidence base at present to suggest that there was a widespread problem. As stated, around 174,900 never-smokers aged 11 to 17 have tried e-cigarettes and another 10,500 use them more than once a week. Does the Minister genuinely think that we should wait until their use of e-cigarettes becomes a significant problem before taking action to remove this loophole?
Finally, I want to talk about flavourings. The ban on flavourings in smoking tobacco was introduced because flavourings, particularly menthol, make it easier for young people to start smoking and increase the likelihood that they will become addicted smokers. However, the flavour ban only prohibits characterising flavours, which are subjective and difficult to measure, making the ban easy to circumvent and complex to oversee. Legislation in Canada bans all flavours, which is easier to implement and enforce. There is good reason to do that, as the tobacco industry has introduced several innovations that have exploited loopholes in the regulations to undermine the impact of the ban. For example, Japan Tobacco International launched a range of alternative products containing menthol, but which they claimed complied with the law. Figures in the Express revealed that 12 months after the ban came into force in 2020, the company had sold more than 100 million packs and made around £91.65 million in profits from menthol brands.
In addition, modified smoking accessories have been introduced, including cards, filter papers and filters, that are designed to add a menthol flavour to both hand-rolling tobacco and cigarette sticks. UCL’s smoking toolkit study found no decline in the proportion of smokers in England reporting menthol cigarette smoking following the introduction of the ban, and it suggested that smokers of menthol cigarettes were able to take advantage of the loophole. The flavour ban is clearly failing to prevent the sale of flavoured tobacco, which is why I propose extending the ban to all tobacco flavours, not just those described as characterising.
Again the Government oppose the measure, claiming that
“it is not clear how a ban on flavours would be enforced in practice”.––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 28 October 2021; c. 815.]
That is not logical as it is much easier to enforce a complete ban on flavours than on only those defined as characterising, which is very subjective.
Does the Minister agree that the tobacco industry is making a mockery of the current flavour ban? Will she commit to closing the loophole by removing the limitation to only include flavours defined as characterising as soon as possible and extending the ban, which currently only applies to cigarettes, to all tobacco products and smoking accessories?
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I join the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, on securing an important debate, and I compliment his outstanding record in the subject area of smoking cessation. As he will know, I chair a separate APPG—the all-party parliamentary group for vaping—which I established in 2014. I do not vape, have never smoked and have no personal interest in vaping, but I set up the APPG after meeting with a proprietor of a small business in my Rugby constituency, who was concerned that impending legislation from the EU—the tobacco products directive—might mean that his customers would not have access to a product that had enabled many of them to finally stop smoking.
Another reason for getting involved was that a member of staff in my office had tried every mechanism available to him—patches and other routes—to quit smoking, but the only thing that had worked was vaping. Since setting up the APPG for vaping, we have heard from many members of the public about the benefits of vaping in enabling them to stop smoking, and the support that has been given to that position by Public Health England’s assertion in 2015 that vaping was 95% safer than smoking combustible tobacco.
I believe that two points should be integral to the treatment of vaping in the forthcoming tobacco control plan. First, there is the recognition of relative risk and harm reduction products, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). Secondly, there is the fundamental importance of distinguishing between combustible tobacco, which we all know and have heard in the debate already is extremely harmful, and the far less harmful non-combustible alternatives that are available. The new plan should continue on the progressive path that the UK has forged over the last few years by continuing to recognise the importance of reduced-risk products in reducing smoking prevalence in our country. It is absolutely essential that we do not conflate smoking combustible tobacco with vaping. That position is not helped by the fact that we regularly see in public places signs telling people that smoking is not permitted and nor is vaping. Signage and messages such as that are putting it in people’s minds that there is an equivalent harm between smoking and vaping, when we know that is not the case. They are entirely separate activities and should be treated as such.
It was concerning to read through some of the documents from the recently concluded framework convention on tobacco control COP9 meeting and see a concerted effort by some to treat vaping as smoking. The hon. Member for City of Durham mentioned that concern. We should push back against such messages at all costs. Earlier, and by contrast, it has been pleasing to see the Government acknowledge the importance of vaping. They did so in the 2017 tobacco control plan and I believe the case for vaping has increased since that time. Of the estimated 3.3 million vapers in the UK, 1.8 million are ex-smokers and the balance are smokers who also vape. We need to recognise that category of people, who reduce their exposure to tobacco by continuing to smoke from time to time but who also use vaping as an alternative device. If we assume that when they are vaping they might otherwise be smoking, their use of vaping products at that time helps their health.
Vaping has played a significant role in recent years in reducing smoking prevalence. If the Government are serious about their 2019 commitment to getting smoke-free by 2030, the role of vaping should be reinforced and supported through the new tobacco control plan. However, as we have heard, we know that approximately 7 million people continue to smoke in the UK and we need to do all that we can to help the many people who have tried to move from cigarettes to safer, reduced-risk products, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said.
Over the past year the APPG for vaping has conducted two inquiries, with two reports, which I know the Minister has seen. The first focused on the UK’s position at the recent COP9 and the second analysed the opportunities available for tobacco harm reduction policies post Brexit. I thank the Minister for her receipt of our reports and for meeting the members of the APPG ahead of COP9 last week. I know that all Members, not just the members of APPGs, will be interested to hear from the Minister some of her thoughts on the outcome of COP9. She will, I know, acknowledge the delay in publishing the tobacco control plan that we expected this summer, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. Can the Minister confirm that the post-implementation review into tobacco-related products will be published beforehand, as recommended by the APPG in its most recent report? I hope that she can also confirm that the new plan will not be published prior to the publication of Office for National Statistics data for 2021 on smoking prevalence. We understand that that was something that her predecessor intimated.
The APPG’s expert recommendations on how we can achieve a smoke-free 2030 can embrace the ideas to help eliminate smoking, tackle inequalities and help level up and strengthen consumer confidence in vaping by tackling some of the misinformation that is currently prevalent. Our report called for the tobacco control plan to ensure that we meet our 2030 smoke-free target by setting out a clear plan to achieve it, embracing the concept of tobacco harm reduction and, as mentioned previously, ensuring that the post-implementation review of the tobacco and related products regulations is published ahead of time. It is imperative that the evidence gathered through the process is properly considered, transparently disclosed and used to best effect before we set out our new policy direction under the new tobacco control plan. The new plan should be used as an opportunity to introduce a multi-category approach that, as we heard earlier, encourages switching to less harmful alternatives when a smoker is unable or unlikely to quit entirely. As we have heard, we know that it is the process of combustion that carries the harm in cigarettes, so we need to fully analyse all the non-combustible reduced-risk products available on the market and align our regulations for all of these products—as has been advocated for by the Royal College of Surgeons.
Finally, we should use the new tobacco control plan as an opportunity for the UK to cement its place as the world leader in tobacco harm reduction. I have been on calls with representatives of other countries; we have a lead in this area that other countries look to and it is important that we maintain that. I know the Minister will agree that that means allowing sensible communication on the benefit of vaping, rather than banning their promotion and looking at the transposed EU tobacco products directive. That way, we can make sure that they are fit for purpose for our more progressive approach to tobacco control and harm reduction. By making these changes we will give ourselves a real chance to reach our smoke-free 2030 target. Without bold leadership—which I know the Minister will provide us with—there is a danger that we will miss that target; as a consequence, we will miss the opportunity to help those 7 million people who still smoke get off tobacco for good.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this important debate. He and I share many interests in common in this House, and this is one of them. I welcome the new Public Health Minister to her role. It is vital that smoking should be at the top of the Government’s list of priorities. Although Northern Ireland and the devolved nations are responsible for our own public health policies, the Government in Westminster retain responsibility for important UK-wide policies. Ensuring that the Minister understands the importance of urgent action on smoking is therefore vital for ensuring that we make the progress we need to make in Northern Ireland.
Last year, a review of Northern Ireland’s progress in the 10-year tobacco control survey, published in 2012, was released. Although we met our target in ensuring a minimum of 5% of the smoking population accesses smoking cessation services annually, that was the only target from the 2012 strategy that had been achieved, which is disappointing. Quite clearly, we are not hitting our targets at a population level. Results from Northern Ireland’s health survey show there has been no significant change in smoking rates from 2018-19, with 17% of the adult population still smoking—the highest rates in the UK. This is extremely disappointing and, as my party’s health spokesperson, I am concerned about what is happening.
Of most concern, however, is that we are failing the most disadvantaged smokers. The target was to reduce smoking rates among manual workers from 31% to 20% by 2020. We are far from this, with rates among manual workers still at a very stubborn 27%. Similarly, rates of smoking in pregnancy have barely declined over the years, despite that having been a priority in the strategy, as the hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned. We had hoped to reduce levels from 15% in 2010 to 9% by 2020. However, the proportion of pregnant women who smoke at the time of delivery is still a very disappointing 14%. We all know that that puts women and their babies at risk of serious and avoidable harm. We are, however, doing better with children and young people—another priority area. Smoking rates among 11 to 16-year-olds have been halved to 4% since 2010. We had set a target of 3%, which was missed. We are not there yet, but that is one area of improvement.
Although smoking rates have declined among children and young people, analysis by Cancer Research UK estimates that 10 children under 16 take up smoking every day across Northern Ireland. If that does not worry you, Mr Bone, it should. Children who live with smokers are almost three times more likely to take up smoking than children from non-smoking households, which creates a generational cycle of inequality, with smoking locked into disadvantaged communities. It is clear to me, in the statistics that are put forward, that disadvantaged communities are one of the areas that the Government and the strategy need to address.
A third of smokers in Northern Ireland still report smoking inside their home, which demonstrates that there is much further to go in creating smoke-free communities and protecting children and others in the household, but progress is being made. I trust that hon. Members saw the recent announcement that, not before time, Northern Ireland will join the other UK nations in banning smoking in cars carrying children. That overdue but welcome measure will help to protect our young people and prevent the creation of a new generation of smokers.
Smoking is a significant challenge in Northern Ireland, particularly in our most disadvantaged communities, which have faced so much adversity in the last 18 months. Those problems are not specific to Northern Ireland, however, as smoking and the inequality that it causes are challenges for the whole UK. Our job is not over yet. Northern Ireland and the whole UK have much further to go on smoking, and there is no time to lose.
I trust that the Minister agrees with all hon. Members and will be even more steadfast in her conviction by the end of the debate. The recent Budget and spending review was an opportunity to go much further in achieving the smoke-free society that we need. Regrettably, that was not realised. Tax increases are one of the most effective interventions that we have to reduce smoking rates and uptake, although that may not be all hon. Members’ opinion. Vitally, they are also the only intervention proven to reduce inequality.
I am convinced, like the hon. Member for Harrow East, that increasing the cost of tobacco products through taxes drives down smoking rates, increases tax revenues and reduces the cost to public finances and society. I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance. It is an intervention that we should make the most of. The Chancellor’s announcement that the duty escalator rate on all tobacco products would increase by 2% above inflation, and by 6% above inflation on hand-rolling tobacco was welcome, but we could and should have gone further.
There is still a major gap in excise tax rates between factory made cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco, which makes the latter more affordable and encourages smokers to trade down to it rather than quitting. That disparity has made hand-rolling tobacco increasingly popular over the years, which should have been addressed by the Chancellor. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I am keen to hear her thoughts on it and what discussions she may have had with the Chancellor. In 1998, fewer than one in five smokers mainly rolled their own cigarettes, but that number is about one in three in Northern Ireland today. I would welcome that issue being addressed through tax revenue. Tobacco taxes are a reserved issue, so I hope that the new tobacco control plan will commit to maintaining high duty rates on tobacco products, as the last one did. I also hope that the Chancellor will seize future opportunities to increase duty rates for tobacco products.
I have repeatedly raised the issue of licensing for tobacco retailers in this House and I will do so again. In Northern Ireland, since 6 April 2016, retailers have been obliged to register with the tobacco register of Northern Ireland; the final deadline for doing so was 1 July 2016. That built on a similar scheme already in place in Scotland, and a scheme is due for implementation in Wales. Since 2018, we have implemented a track-and-trace scheme that requires every retailer to have an economic operator identifier code registered to their business and a facility identifier code for each store or premises that stores tobacco.
Since leaving the EU, the UK has established and launched its own system, with Northern Ireland operating in the UK and EU systems. That makes it easy for all nations in the UK, including England, to not just implement a retail register scheme, but go further and implement a comprehensive retail licensing scheme. Retail licensing is the obvious back-up to the tracking and tracing of cigarettes and would help to tackle the illicit trade that gives smokers access to cheap tobacco.
In Northern Ireland, there has been a serious issue with paramilitaries using illegal tobacco as one of their revenue streams. Those who sell it have no compunction about selling it to children too. The illegal trade makes it not just less likely that smokers will quit, but more likely that children will start. That double whammy greatly concerns me. The Police Service of Northern Ireland is aware of that and is taking steps to address the issue.
I urged the Minister’s predecessors to ensure that their officials were in contact with the devolved nations on retail licensing and I do so again. Will the Minister ensure that her colleagues at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs talk to their equivalents in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales about their experiences with tobacco retail licensing and the lessons that they have learned regionally from the experiences of the devolved nations?
I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak. England remains an outlier on this important measure that could help to tackle illicit trade and protect children from tobacco. My absolute priority is stopping children’s access to tobacco. We can and should address those issues collectively, bringing knowledge from the nations that we represent—the four regions of the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If we do so, I am confident that we can and will deliver policy that helps not only us but the constituents that we serve. That is our duty.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing the debate. I recently joined the all-party parliamentary group for vaping, but I have taken an interest in that area ever since it became a matter of not infrequent discussion when I was a Member of the European Parliament, especially in relation to the EU tobacco products directive and some of the flaws therein. We need a serious debate about advertising practices related to vaping and misinformation about the use of e-cigarettes and vaping products. That is especially significant for me as the Member of Parliament for Northampton South, which has a nationally high smoking rate of 18.8%.
The Government’s tobacco control plan must be based on the significant and growing body of evidence that vaping is an effective alternative for smokers. I thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and his team for announcing that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has updated its guidance on medical licensing for e-cigarettes, allowing them to be prescribed to those trying to quit smoking. However, there is still a public perception that vaping is as harmful, or more harmful, than smoking. The rate of smokers switching to vaping has slowed over the last 18 months, largely because of misleading media articles and junk science causing concerns over the quality of e-cigarettes. Some 53% of smokers believe that vaping is as harmful or more harmful than smoking, according to a 2021 Government updated evidence summary. There needs to be concrete and clear information on passive vaping to counter the public misconception that it is harmful.
It is clear that the Government and industry must push back against those misconceptions, and the forthcoming tobacco control plan must set out to tackle them. I encourage the Government to look at some of the proposals put forward in Canada and New Zealand, which hon. Members have mentioned. These countries are introducing approved health claims and messaging about switching from smoking to vaping, alongside some nicotine health warnings.
We must make a clearer distinction between smoking and vaping. There must be clear standards that differentiate smoking from vaping in public spaces—and importantly in work spaces. The last thing that someone attempting to quit smoking wants is to stand around in the same vicinity as smokers. Employers should have specific workplace vaping policies that balance the needs of vapers and smokers. The parliamentary estate could lead the way in adopting and implementing this policy.
Finally, I ask the Minister to support online vape retailers. Retailers and manufacturers must be able to responsibly promote their products online, and to highlight the health and cost benefits of switching to e-cigarettes. At this point, I suppose that my wife would say, “Il meglio è nemico del bene”—the best is the enemy of the good. I am not unaware that there are drawbacks and problems with nicotine intake. However, given the damage that smoking does to people’s health and the sad personal experiences that we have heard today, that expression must be borne very much in mind.
Vape retailers are unable to use their own websites and social media platforms to communicate the benefits of vaping to customers. The barriers faced by online vape retailers are disproportionate and should be removed to allow effective communication with those attempting to stop smoking, which is critical, by switching to vaping. Compared with methods such as patches, which were used when as a county council leader I took part in the return of public health to local government in 2009 to 2013, vaping’s effectiveness is clear. We are in all seriousness talking about saving lives.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I declare an interest as the chair of The Gallaher Trust, which was set up half a dozen years ago in the wake of the closure of tobacco production in Northern Ireland. It was named after Tom Gallaher, a huge industrialist in Northern Ireland who created tens of thousands of jobs. Although the charity has absolutely nothing to do with the promotion, sale or development of tobacco—it is a skills development charity, of which I am an honorary and unremunerated chairman—I think it is important to put my interest on record, because of the association that people may draw from that.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate. He has presented the arguments in the way that he always does, very persuasively. It is important that we have had a very good, healthy debate. It has showed that we are probably all on the same page. We want to get to the same finish line, but there are differences in nuance and in how we get there. I think it is important that we explore those differences and we try to get there in the best, most efficient and effective way.
Any tobacco control plan must be evidence-based, not based on emotions. Evidence is key. Innovations to support quitting smoking are crucial to the plan. We have heard something of the detail from the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and others who are very keen that we develop innovation to ensure a systematic quitting of smoking. The evidence shows that high punitive taxation policies simply do not work. For someone growing up in a deprived society, whose parents have low wages, and where cigarettes—a lawful product in the local shops—are nearly £15 a pack, the temptation to purchase a pack for a fiver from someone round the local pub is huge and significant. The real thrust of any tobacco control plan must go hand in hand with a plan that addresses criminality. Aside from one or two vague mentions of criminality, that is what is absent from the plan.
We have to focus on criminality. We can tax this product until it squeaks even more, but unless we address the criminality that lies behind illegal product and illegal product sales across the United Kingdom, I am afraid that consumption rates will stay at a very high, stubborn level. I do not believe that there are fewer than 10 million smokers in the United Kingdom. I think that anyone who believes that is in cloud cuckoo land. Walk down any street in this city and count the first 100 people. I would say that in excess of 20 people on average are smoking. That is a rudimentary calculation. In other places it is considerably higher—in night culture, for instance. Let us face the fact that smoking consumption is probably at a much higher rate than the figures suggest. Therefore, all the punitive taxation policies that have been adopted by the United Kingdom—and they are the highest in the world—are not addressing the stubborn fact that people are continuing to smoke.
Let us pivot and get on to other counteracting measures. Where do those other measures rest? I believe there is a role for partnership with experts. Three things need to be done. We need to explore, develop and ensure that new products are brought to the market expeditiously. We need to engage a huge amount of effort in education, especially for young people and women. We need to make sure there is adequate, sensible and robust enforcement against criminality.
As has been mentioned today, there is a full range of new products already on the market to ensure that less harmful products are available to smokers, helping them to reduce their habit and get away from smoking. I applaud companies that have created e-cigarettes, nicotine patches, heated products and vaping, to encourage people away from the very harmful addiction to tobacco and nicotine. Those less harmful alternatives must be pursued and we must encourage their use, not discourage it. Indeed, the points that were made earlier regarding misinformation about those products should be addressed sensibly by central Government. There must be co-operation with responsible companies that want to make their lawful product and pay tax on it. That co-operation should allow research and development to happen, to enable them to get away from manufacturing the single product that they currently produce.
Some mention has been made today of the levy, and it was suggested that there should be a new levy on tobacco manufacturing companies. As I said earlier, we in the United Kingdom pay the highest taxes in the world on a pack of cigarettes—I think that 90% of what we pay for cigarettes goes to the Government—but that high tax has not solved the problem by reducing consumption. What happens is that people are driven towards buying unlawful products, thinking that that is a harmless activity. Many people who purchase cheap cigarettes think that they come over from mainland Europe in a white van and do no one any harm, but of course most of those products are illegally made. They are not made by the tobacco companies. What is inside those products is beyond tobacco and therefore, incredibly, they are even more harmful than cigarettes. People do not necessarily realise it, but selling those products is a huge and significant crime in our kingdom.
In the last number of years, over £1 billion-worth of illicit cigarettes have been sold in the United Kingdom. This is not a problem exclusive to Northern Ireland; in fact, we are the minority. This is a multi-million pound problem across the whole United Kingdom, and we have to get to grips with it as soon as we can. That multi-million pound crime syndicate needs to be broken up and destroyed.
Regarding taxation, in 2019-20 tobacco alone accounted for £11.25 billion of the Government’s revenues. However, if we set against that the criminal sales of tobacco, we see that the Government lost almost £3 billion in tobacco revenue. There is a huge gap that could be made up. On the point about a levy, if there was proper enforcement against the criminals, an extra £3 billion would be available—legitimately raised from legitimate sales—for things such as the promotion of education, research and development. Imposing another levy on the tobacco companies is lazy and would not address the problem of crime; indeed, that problem would continue to grow. Until we face up to that, we will keep coming back to this House—year in and year out, decade in and decade out—and inflating taxation but seeing consumption remain stubbornly high.
Let us address the real issue of properly attacking the criminals. In 2020, HMRC gathered an additional £1.4 billion through its border control activities. That was an untapped source of new revenue, which came about largely as a result of Brexit and having more control of our borders, but also because of the pandemic and the inability to travel to and from the continent to bring illegal products in. The Government were able to raise revenue under those circumstances. With a little bit of ingenuity, they could continue to raise that additional £1.4 billion in previously untapped sources by clamping down on gangs and gathering the revenue that the public are entitled to have gathered on their behalf; that is something that HMRC should do proudly.
As Members know, there is a £10,000 on-the-spot fine for criminals engaged in evasion of tax on tobacco. People might say that that is a very high fine, but it is not. A case of illicit cigarettes is worth hundreds of thousands of pounds in illicit sales to a criminal, and a van full is worth over £1 million. Why is the on-the-spot fine not something like £50,000 or £100,000, in view of the sums that the criminals make? For every van that HMRC captures, at least 20 or 30 get through, so let us make sure that we have proper enforcement. The high price of a pack of cigarettes simply encourages people, especially those with less disposable income, to purchase illicit products.
I understand the point that was made about the age limit, but if we are going to change the age limit for smoking, we have to look at the whole panoply of age limits across the United Kingdom—for alcohol consumption, driving, betting and smoking. It would be incredibly difficult to enforce different age limits rather than having a standardised one. If a 20-year-old tells a shopkeeper that they are 21 and they want to buy a pack of cigarettes, that would be incredibly difficult to enforce. Shopkeepers already find it hard to tell an 18-year-old from a 14-year-old in some circumstances.
Let us make sure that we have a standardised age for sales rather than different ages for different products. I do not think the Government are looking at that point, but it will no doubt gather momentum, because it seems to be an easy solution. None of these easy solutions work. Hard attacks against criminal enterprises are where we will make a significant difference.
We need to avoid the danger of virtue signalling—I am not saying any of that has gone on today; we have had a good, positive and practical debate—and move towards evidence-based solutions, including by encouraging companies to make less harmful product available to the public, by enforcing and controlling the legitimate enterprises of business and by ensuring that criminals are not allowed to get away with their multibillion-pound criminal enterprise. Otherwise, we should really go the whole hog and ban tobacco altogether in the United Kingdom. To achieve some of the goals that have been set out, that is where this debate has to be taken. It is not being taken there at present, but we need to get real on this.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Mr Bone. I add to colleagues’ congratulations to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate, and on his leadership on this issue in Parliament through the all-party group and beyond. He made an outstanding case in his opening speech and set the tone for a debate that will, I hope, be practical and impactful.
The hon. Gentleman characterised his all-party group as a critical friend. That is very much the case, and in that sense it is the best example of a parliamentary group. It has been very impactful, especially through its most recent reports, which I will borrow from liberally. I hope to continue in the spirit of cross-party support that he and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) have established. There is not much politics in this area, and I think the less politics, the better. This is a big prize for the nation’s health, and together we can find a lot of the solutions. The hon. Gentleman led the debate in that spirt.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham is the leading Labour figure on this issue, as she showed during our very long proceedings in the Health and Care Bill Committee—you shared in a significant portion of those, Mr Bone. I thought her amendments were excellent and I was proud to support them. I had hoped that the Government would be minded to accept them, and the ideas are still good ones. The hon. Member for Harrow East has kindly offered the Minister another opportunity to do so during the next stage of proceedings on the Bill, and I dare say the noble Lords may offer similar opportunities. The Government need to pick up these ideas, the vast majority of which are very basic things on which I think there is complete consensus. I hope to hear from the Minister about some progress.
The hon. Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) made points about vaping. It is important to keep talking about vaping in debates such as this—if nothing else, about some of the misinformation that the hon. Member for Northampton South mentioned. Vaping does work as a quit aid. Of course, we do not want people to start, and we always need to say that. I am unable to recall by rote the phrase that the hon. Gentleman’s wife used, but I will sometimes take 95%, certainly when it comes to health. With the things that my constituents disproportionately lose their lives to, 95% seems like pretty good progress. I hope that that is part of the tobacco control plan, and that the Government focus on improving quality and standardisation in the market. From looking in shops, I know how difficult it is to find the same product twice. That tells us about the vagaries in that market, which could be greatly improved.
When the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was speaking, I was struck by the fact that much of what he said about Strangford could equally be said about Nottingham North. He could have said “Nottingham North” instead of “Strangford”, and we would have heard the same thing. Health is a devolved matter, and it is important to respect that, but I hope we can move forward, by consent, as four nations on this matter. That would resolve some of the issues around illicit tobacco mentioned by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), as well as building public support and understanding. We would not want massive variances on this issue, so I hope we can reach a consensus.
I agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim that we need to be evidence-based and to promote innovation. In my view, the evidence strongly shows that tax works as a driver for reducing smoking, and it has done for consecutive decades. I am not blind to the increased risk of illicit tobacco and I am aware of it in my community, but I do not see this as an either/or situation. We can have a higher tax regime and be very serious about organised crime, and I would support that approach.
This is a really big prize for our country. As we have heard, 7 million people, or about 15% of adults, smoke, which has devastating consequences for illness and death. In 2019-20, more than half a million UK hospital admissions were attributed to smoking. We have made great progress over recent decades—that should be a point of great pride for all parties—and we have the lowest rates of smoking since records began. However, there must be a recognition that these gains are not equal, and I hope the Minister will say that that will be a focus for the next tobacco control plan.
Poor communities, such as mine, have benefitted less. In 2019, fewer than one in 10 professional and managerial workers smoked—that is well on the way to the smoke-free 2030 target of less than 5%—compared with nearly one in four workers in routine and manual occupations. That is a serious variance, and it is a big part of the reason why the life expectancy gap between the richest and the poorest has widened in recent years.
A child born in Nottingham today is expected to live for seven years fewer than one born in Westminster today. Looking at healthy life expectancy, rather than pure life expectancy, the gap is probably double that. If we were to tot up all the environmental factors involved, half of the difference is attributable to smoking. “Levelling up” is the phrase of the day, and this is a real levelling-up issue that I hope we can all coalesce around. That is reflected in the fact that three quarters of the public support the smoke-free 2030 ambition. As politicians we can see that, for once, the right thing is also the popular thing, which is rarely the case. We should take that opportunity.
In Health and Care Bill Committee debates, we explored these issues at length. I hope the Government will revisit the amendments that were proposed, and we will certainly be doing so. I hope the Minister will tell me that I am wrong and being uncharacteristically cynical, but I am anxious that we will not see a new tobacco control plan in the next six weeks. If that is the case, why not use the Health and Care Bill in front of us as a vehicle?
As the Minister is pulling together a tobacco control plan, I hope she will actively consider some of Opposition Members’ suggestions for that plan. First, there must be a resumption of the promotion of stopping smoking. Over the past 11 years, this Government have stopped evidence-based behaviour change campaigns, which have virtually disappeared. It is no surprise that quit attempts have reduced by a quarter. Such campaigns are good investments, and we have lost them from the public health grant. We need them to be returned.
I mentioned vaping, and that point has been well explored. We need access to stop smoking services, which have really good evidence bases on their impact. We know that they are most likely to be used by people in occupations where smoking remains stubbornly high, but we have lost them as the public health grant has been clobbered over the past decade. I know for an absolute certainty that any savings we have made there have been hoovered up by losses in the health service, and I hope we can do a bit better there. Three weeks ago, in the Budget, we did not hear about a reversal of those cuts in funding to public health, and that is really disappointing. However, if there is a financial issue here—as I say, I do not think there should be, because this should be seen as an investment rather than a cost—we can, as colleagues have said, help the Minister to pay for those services and still have some change left over for an uplift in the poorest communities through a levy based on the “polluter pays” principle. I hope that the Minister will mention that.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) asked the hon. Member for Harrow East whether the tax system could be a way of promoting changes within the tobacco industry. I think that is exactly right. When I meet representatives of the tobacco industry—I know it is out of fashion these days, but I meet anybody who asks me to meet them—they all tell me that they want to stop selling tobacco products to people. The tax system is a really good way of making good on that, and of taking the eye-watering profits that come through the system and investing them in effective ways of stopping people smoking. That would be a very good thing for everybody.
In the meantime, however, let us close the loopholes in tobacco control. The first, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham says, is that the packaging of e-cigarettes clearly shows they are being pushed to children. Secondly, hon. Members were shocked—although they should not be—that companies can give out vaping products to under-18s for nothing. That loophole is clearly outside of the spirit of the law, so let us do better there. The final point is about characterising flavours in tobacco, such as menthol. That should be a real problem for the Government, and indeed for Members of this House. The regulations that we passed had a clear intent, but they are being routinely circumvented to the point where, if hon. Members had their phones in front of them, they could find menthol products in seconds. This will not do, and it behoves the Government to come back to those regulations and make good on them, either by making them more effective or by promoting greater enforcement.
I know that colleagues are keen to hear the fullest response possible from the Minister, so I finish by reiterating Opposition Members’ support. I think we can do something really impactful here, and we should use this tobacco control plan to do so. The sooner we see a draft, the better, so we can begin that work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this important debate and for sharing his personal story with us. I also thank members of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health for their tireless work on tobacco control, as well as the APPG on vaping for their work.
The UK is rightly recognised as a world leader on tobacco control. That is because it has invested in a range of interventions over the past two decades, including a strong regulatory framework that has led to, among other things, the introduction of standardised packaging, the end of tobacco displays, and protection from the harms caused by second-hand smoke. Thanks to those interventions, smoking rates in England are down to a record low of just under 14%. However, although we celebrate that success, there are still around 6 million smokers in England, and therefore there is more to be done.
Sir Charles Walker
As we have heard, addictions are very powerful, and if we want to get to a smoke-free 2030, we need to break the link between a nicotine fix and smoking lit tobacco.
Maggie Throup
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The burden of tobacco harms is not shared equally: smoking rates are far higher in poorer areas of the country, and among the lowest socioeconomic groups. Alongside the tragedy created by illness and early deaths, the NHS bears the heavy financial burden of £2.5 billion every year from smoking. In 2019-20, smoking was responsible for nearly half a million hospital admissions and around 64,000 deaths.
The Government have set the bold ambition for England to be smoke free by 2030. To support that ambition, we have been building on the successes of our current tobacco control plan. We will soon publish a new plan with an even sharper focus on tackling health disparities. That new plan will form a vital part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda and will set out a comprehensive package of new policy proposals and regulatory changes, to enable us to meet our smoke-free 2030 ambition.
We are, of course, carefully considering the recommendations of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. Our new tobacco control plan will look to further strengthen our regulatory framework. We are exploring various regulatory proposals, including those put forward as amendments to the Health and Care Bill. We will conduct further research and build a robust evidence base in support of such measures, and will include the strongest proposals in the new plan.
One continuing concern is that one in 10 pregnant women are still smokers at the time of delivery, which is something that the Government are determined to tackle. The maternity transformation programme contains some important measures, and we have made a commitment under our NHS long-term plan that pregnant mothers and their partners will be offered NHS-funded treatment to help them to quit. I know that issue is close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. Our new plan will continue to have a strong focus on pregnancy and will encourage more innovation and new approaches to help mothers to quit.
The evidence is clear that e-cigarettes are less harmful to health than smoking. It remains the goal of the Government to maximise the opportunities presented by e-cigarettes to reduce smoking while managing any risks. Our regulatory framework enables smokers to use e-cigarettes to help them to quit, but we do not want to encourage non-smokers and young people to take up those products. In the current tobacco control plan we have actioned the MHRA to help bring medicinal e-cigarettes to the UK market. On 29 October, the MHRA published updated guidance to encourage manufacturers to do so.
Stop-smoking services remain at the heart of our tobacco control strategy, producing high quit rates of 59% after four weeks. Since 2000, they have helped nearly 5 million people to quit. We have protected the public health grant over the course of the spending review, to ensure that local authorities can continue to invest in stop-smoking services and campaigns specific to their areas. We will continue to support local authorities to prioritise those services.
The UK has been recognised as a global leader in tobacco control. We are proud to be a member of the World Health Organisation framework convention on tobacco control. My officials played an active role in the ninth conference of the parties—COP9—last week, and reaffirmed our commitment to deal with the global tobacco pandemic. It was a robust meeting, with more people attending than ever. In my video statement to COP9, I set out the UK commitment to having comprehensive tobacco control policies, including a strong regulatory framework for e-cigarettes. Our commitment to the WHO FCTC is further demonstrated through the overseas development funding we contribute to the FCTC 2030 project, which is now entering its sixth year. That project directly supports the implementation of the WHO FCTC in 31 low and middle-income countries, helping to reduce the burden of death and disease from tobacco.
I will now address some of the issues raised by right hon. and hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) talked about restrictions imposed during covid. Covid has highlighted the health disparities across the country. Our ambition to be smoke free by 2030 will play a major role in tackling those disparities. I would like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East that I am conscious of the urgency of the publication of the tobacco control plan. However, I am determined that the plan will have robust and effective measures. He also highlighted measures that the APPG would like to see included. Along with my officials, I am looking carefully at each measure put forward.
Tobacco taxation was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow East and for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), as well as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). That is a matter for Her Majesty’s Treasury. However, the Department continues to work with HMT to assess the most effective regulatory means to support the Government’s smoke-free 2030 ambition, which includes exploring a potential future levy.
Maggie Throup
I am a bit short of time.
On raising the age from 18 to 21, we know how important the period between the ages of 18 and 21 is for those who may experiment with tobacco. We will include a focus on protecting young people and adults from the harms of tobacco within our tobacco control plan. As I have already indicated, I am ambitious for our new plan.
On the Health and Care Bill, at this stage we do not feel that it is the right Bill for the suggested measures without a full assessment. Members should rest assured that they will be fully considered as the tobacco control plan is finalised.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) asked about the post-implementation reviews. The Department will publish its response in the coming months. I make no excuse for the delay. We had more than 5,000 responses to that review, and that was coupled with the pressures that my Department has experienced on covid-19. I reassure colleagues that it is on our agenda and we will publish in due course.
The hon. Member for City of Durham also asked about the investigations into menthol. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is investigating a range of cigarettes to determine if the flavour of menthol is noticeable. Once that study is complete, we will explore whether further action is needed against companies that have breached regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby asked a number of questions. I understand that the ONS will publish smoking prevalence data for 2020 next month.
As I have already said, COP9 was one of the best attended conferences of the parties so far. I understand that there was a real buzz and an appetite to address the harms from tobacco and implement the framework convention on tobacco control, which I am sure will be welcomed by everybody in the room.
My hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) spoke about e-cigarettes. The Government are clear that we only support the use of e-cigarettes as a tool for smokers who are trying to quit, not as a route for people to take up smoking by another means. Our approach to e-cigarettes has been and will remain pragmatic and evidence-based.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South talked about the environment that those who are attempting to quit find themselves in. Vaping is not covered by the smoke-free legislation. It is down to individual businesses to determine how they consider the guidelines.
I extend my thanks to hon. Members for their participation in today’s debate. It has been very constructive and there is clearly cross-party support. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to a smoke-free 2030. As we build back better from the pandemic, our aim is to make smoking truly a thing of the past and level up society.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her reply. I also thank the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson for his strong support. I thank every colleague who has participated in the debate. We all share the same view: smoking must be eliminated and we must get to a smoke-free 2030. All the advancements in legislation on this subject have come from the Back Benches, and they will continue to come from the Back Benches. If the Government refuse to act, we will continue to press further.
In answer to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), the “polluter pays” principle is key. When we raise tobacco tax at the point of delivery, the individual who smokes pays, but if we continue to tax the profits, we can pass the benefits on in terms of prevention. I thank colleagues for their contributions today. We have had a very good debate. No doubt the debate will continue, on both the Health and Care Bill and other measures.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the delivery of the Tobacco Control Plan.
Pedicabs: Women’s Safety
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
We move on to another important debate. While people are getting into place, there are some housekeeping rules. I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate. This is in line with current guidance that the House of Commons Commission has provided. I remind Members that they are asked to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please give each other and members of staff space when they are seated and when entering and leaving the room. I apologise for it being so cold in the room, but you lot have only just come in and I have already been here for one and a half hours.
I call Nickie Aiken to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the safety of women and the regulation of pedicabs in London.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, for what I consider to be a very important debate for my constituency. It is a truth well known that cities such as London attract people looking for opportunities for education, culture, work and a vibrant community. In London, we are blessed with a huge volume of spaces to do that. However, the way that public spaces are used and experienced in our capital differs for women and men. As the local Member of Parliament, one thing is clear to me: women have the right to use space in the same way as men and should feel safe in doing so. Since the devastating murders of Sarah Everard and Sabina Nessa, many people have contacted me to highlight concerns about women and girls’ safety on our streets. For a multitude of reasons, their deaths have become a watershed moment. Women understood the vulnerability of walking home alone at night. The Government have made incredible strides in recent years on the issue, and I commend the Home Office ministerial team on its work. I note in particular the Government’s strategy on tackling violence against women and girls. I know the Minister’s work in the Department for Transport on this area and I pay respect to that as well—brilliant work.
The violence against women and girls strategy is a significant step in the right direction, but there is still an enormous piece of work to do around making sure our cities and, in particular, our capital city leave no stone unturned in ensuring the safety of women and girls on our streets. In recent years, a great emphasis has been placed on ensuring that modes of public and private hire transport meet standards of safety so that passengers can move around our capital with a sense of security. For women in particular, I know this is a great relief. It is therefore of huge concern that we still have unregulated private hire vehicles in London. Here I speak about the issue of unlicenced pedicabs.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
On that point, does the hon. Member agree that any private hire vehicle, including pedicabs, should be regulated and licensed?
Nickie Aiken
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I absolutely agree, and I know that the local authority in her Vauxhall constituency, Lambeth, also agrees with us that pedicabs should be regulated.
Anyone who has come to central London has seen and most likely heard pedicabs. They are loud, they often block roads, and many intimidate and harass London visitors, particularly women. Currently, they are the only form of public transport in the capital that is unregulated. Due to a legal loophole, Transport for London is unable to regulate pedicabs, which means that neither drivers nor vehicles are licensed. I know that there are pedicab firms that undertake their own voluntary vehicle and driver checks and have the right insurance. I have met them and I have worked with the pedicab drivers’ association. I fully support those pedicab companies that want to do the right thing. However, as noted in the official impact assessment of the Pedicabs (London) Bill, there are still too many rogue pedicab drivers who do nothing to ensure that they and their vehicles are safe or insured, and they work at the moment without any legal repercussions.
This is a particular issue around the west end in my constituency, with its major theatres, nightlife venues and tourist locations, and in the backstreets of Soho and Covent Garden, which are so vibrant. Every day I see and hear about the impact of rogue pedicab drivers on local people, local businesses and visitors. Touting can be extremely aggressive, with amplified music and shouting into the early hours and throughout the night. As Amanda Jane, a Soho resident, said to me only last night:
“When you have your children woken up at midnight by these things, it is incredibly stressful and upsetting.”
The police, local councils and Transport for London need to be able to monitor these vehicles to ensure that passengers are safe. I do not say this lightly: we are living on borrowed time. I really worry about the safety of passengers, particularly women and girls, who experience repeated antisocial behaviour from rogue drivers. I note that the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 has a useful power for councils such as Westminster City Council to use in reducing the antisocial behaviour related to pedicabs. However, that is a short-term measure that requires huge amounts of evidence, time and resources. Local authorities do not have the finances to spend on that, but closing a simple loophole would give them the powers that they need.
The turnover of riders and the locations that they use means that it is very rare for a case to be brought to court. Pedicab drivers are a transient population. As soon as they know that they are in trouble with the police or a local authority, they disappear, so the local authority’s power is useless, but local people and businesses have to put up with it.
The patchwork of issues can be traced back to the fact that a pedicab is currently defined as a “stage carriage” in Greater London under the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 and thus does not fall under TfL’s licensing powers. I say to the Minister again: we are in the 21st century and are having to deal with 19th-century legislation. For the sake of women’s and girls’ safety, it is surely time to modernise the legislation surrounding pedicabs.
It is so frustrating. We need to ensure that pedicabs in our capital city are regarded as hackney carriages and thus subject to regulation. In every other city in England, they are considered hackney carriages and can be regulated, although we do not see them in other large cities. I cannot recall seeing them in Manchester. They might be there, but they are not as prevalent as they are in central London, and there is probably a reason for that. Rogue pedicab operators know that they are not regulated and they can get away with dreadful—
Florence Eshalomi
On that point, the Local Government Association supports the use of the national register of licence revocations and refusals for pedicab licensing. Does the hon. Lady feel that that would provide the safety checks to reassure women that the people driving those cabs have had adequate checks?
Nickie Aiken
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The more checks that we can have on drivers, the better. We do not know who they are most of the time. I have so much evidence in my office that I have collated over the last couple of years, and drivers have been known to be wanted by the police, not just in the UK but overseas. We are allowing women to get into vehicles with drivers who have not been checked by the Disclosure and Barring Service. I find it incredible.
I am sure the Minister appreciates that this loophole invites a whole host of issues, not least the safeguarding of passengers—not just women, but all passengers. All other private hire vehicles, including our iconic black cabs, have to satisfy a whole range of licensing requirements to protect passengers. I have had the benefit of black cab drivers’ views on pedicabs many times, and they are frustrated that it is not the same for them as it is for pedicabs. When they are at a traffic light with a pedicab, they have to jump through hoops but the pedicab does not. I thank our brilliant black cab drivers, and the nation thanks a particular taxi driver in Liverpool for his heroic actions on Sunday morning. We owe them the ability to have a fair scheme for all private hire vehicles.
Unlike the situation when someone gets into an Uber, private hire vehicle or black cab, pedicab passengers have no way of knowing where they are going or with whom they are getting into the vehicle. In London, pedicabs are able to operate with impunity, which leads to conflict and an inconsistent position with licensed private hires—we must move to a transparent safety and movement-regulated system. Transparency is key, and the perception of safety is just as important as the licence transparency scheme. As it stands, there is no accountability for any incident, which is what concerns me. As a woman, and as the mother of a young woman, that concerns me. It speaks to a culture of some pedicab operators being able to get away with unacceptable behaviour and unsafe vehicles, which are encouraged by an absence of a licensing regime, and it is unfair on pedicab operators who do the right thing.
Given the lack of regulation, there are very few powers that the police can enforce with regards to rogue pedicabs. For instance, law enforcement has no powers in relation to lack of insurance, lack of training for riders, or pedicabs that are not fit for the purpose of carrying passengers. This means that even if a police officer sees a wholly unfit pedicab, they can do very little to prevent its hire in central London or across the capital. I often walk around my constituency, and I am always shocked, frustrated and appalled by the behaviour of many pedicabs drivers who are touting for business. We really need to end this practice.
The police can enforce cycle construction, use and lighting regulations, but even those are unclear with regards to pedicabs and other three or four-wheeled cargo or work bikes. TfL’s “Pedicab Safety Evaluation” notes that, as pedicabs
“are not referred to specifically”
in such regulations, they often do not comply. One resident in my constituency put it well:
“When I spoke to a pedicab driver, he told me I’d better get used to it as it was about to get worse after lockdown. He said, ‘There’s nothing the police can do about it. This nuisance is permitted as the operators are able to use a byelaw related to the power of their machines.’”
That is truly staggering. Others and I have sustained evidence that many pedicab operators not only act contrary to basic health and safety standards, but do so knowing there is little power to hold them to account.
I want to do everything I can to ensure that we send a clear message that when we see examples of poor standards and behaviour in London, we will respond with strength. Intervention is necessary to create a licensing system to improve passenger safety, particularly for women and girls, which is why I am delighted to be bringing my Pedicabs (London) Bill to the House for its Second Reading on Friday. I have received powerful testimony from local authorities, businesses and residents on the transformative effect that the Bill will have in London. My Bill is supported by Members from all parties, the Mayor of London, the Deputy Mayor for Transport, TfL, London councils such as Westminster, Lambeth, Camden, and Kensington and Chelsea, the pedicab drivers association, the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the New West End Company, and the Heart of London Business Alliance. It is also supported by residents associations and amenity societies up and down my constituency: the Soho Society, the Marylebone Association, the St Marylebone Society, the Covent Garden Community Association, the Knightsbridge Association, and the Hyde Park Association, to name but a few. By enabling TfL to introduce a licensing system for pedicabs, the Bill would allow it to set standards for operators, vehicles and drivers. It could check whether a pedicab driver had the right to work in the UK, and allow licensed operators to provide a service to passengers that would ensure their safety.
I want to make sure that the Minister is aware that I was informed of a tourist being charged £380 for a journey from Leicester Square to Stratton Street, which is under a mile. I cannot find the charge for a black cab, but the equivalent Uber cost would be £7. There is therefore a concern about the amount of money that is being charged.
In conclusion, I know that the Minister understands this, as well as the danger posed to women and girls in public spaces; I appreciate all the work that she has done in her current and previous roles. Do we really have to see someone seriously hurt, sexually assaulted, raped or killed in order to ensure that we get more safety for pedicabs? Do we really want to have to look a family in the face and say that, actually, we could have regulated pedicabs? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I start by sincerely thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing a debate on this incredibly important issue. I am very grateful for the contribution from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), who has expressed her support in the debate. This is truly a cross-party issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster has accumulated an impressive collection of stakeholders, local community groups and politicians across the board who back her dedicated campaign. I pay huge tribute to her determination to propel this issue to forefront of our attention. I also associate myself with the comments she has made about the debt of gratitude that we all owe to the taxi driver in the tragic Liverpool terrorist attack.
I feel like I have come back home to the Department for Transport in responding to this debate, and it is a great pleasure to do so. My hon. Friend referenced the fact that I served in that Department, so I have some familiarity with this issue and how important it is. I am also pleased to say that the Government recognise her concerns, expressed so well, about the safety of pedicabs, and the impact that they can have across the whole of the city, not least in her constituency, which is a centre of night-time and tourist activity. As another woman who travels on public transport around London and in my constituency, as all of us do, and as a mother of a young woman, I agree with my hon. Friend that this is not just something that we discuss in Parliament—it is the lived experience that all of us have when we go outside. I want to pull out a line that she has used: “Women have the right to feel safe in the same spaces as men.” I fully agree with her.
My hon. Friend has run a considerable campaign to raise awareness of the issue, and the Government have listened. The Government acknowledge that it is not acceptable for the pedicab industry to be the only unregulated form of public transport in London. It is a glaring legal anomaly. She has amassed considerable evidence and some very powerful testimony, so we agree that regulating this industry is in the interests of safety and fairness for all road users, pedestrians and passengers. My hon. Friend is also right to highlight the timing; we are coming out of lockdown, starting to see tourists come back to the businesses of the west end and other parts of London, and starting to see people go out and enjoy the night-time economy, as we discussed in this Chamber only last week. Pedicabs are an important part of the landscape that people will see when they come to our city, and we owe it to everybody to make this form of transport safe.
That is why the Government support my hon. Friend’s Bill, which has its Second Reading this Friday. I wish her a huge amount of Godspeed and good luck with it. If introduced, her Bill will enable Transport for London to introduce a licensing regime with enforcement powers and, among other things, to introduce safety requirements. I do not want to tempt fate, but we all know that things do not always go smoothly in the Chamber. In the unfortunate event that her Bill does not proceed beyond Second Reading, the Government will seek opportunities to bring forward our own legislation.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for that response. It is good to hear that the Government will support the private Member’s Bill. This is an issue that people have raised a number of times. As in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), in my constituency of Vauxhall, outside St Thomas’ Hospital, where people have had eye operations and elective surgery, people have been harassed by these pedicabs. We need reform to the legislation now—Londoners can wait no longer. If the private Member’s Bill does not proceed to the next stage, will the Minister push the issue with her colleagues in the Department for Transport?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I have been to that hospital myself and experienced exactly the things that she has described. I can assure her that Baroness Vere of Norbiton, who is responsible for this issue in the Department for Transport, is looking closely at all options. She has met my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster to discuss future opportunities to introduce our own legislation, should it be required, as soon as parliamentary time permits.
My hon. Friend is right to say that this is a long-running issue. It is something to which the Department for Transport has dedicated attention. She rightly raised the important issue of women’s safety, which we have discussed many times in this Chamber. In my role as a Home Office Minister, it is right that I recognise the points that she has made. As safeguarding Minister, tackling violence against women and girls, in all its forms and wherever it occurs is my top priority.
When I was a Minister in the Department for Transport, I prioritised the safety of women and girls. We worked closely through the issues that are faced by vulnerable groups, including women, on the transport network, and we are keen to do more. That is why, when I was a Minister there, I was delighted to appoint Laura Shoaf and Anne Shaw as the first VAWG transport champions in the Department. They work across campaign groups, industry and the whole of Government to understand where we can improve safety on the UK’s transport network. By January next year, they will produce independent recommendations for the Department for Transport and the wider network on which best practices should be adopted to improve the safety of the transport network for women and girls. That is a really important theme. Although I am now in the Home Office and work with the police and other partners, women and girls often say that they feel most unsafe when they are taking public transport, walking home from a night out or thinking about how to get home, whether by tube, bus or train. That is where those vulnerabilities exist, and that is why it is really important that I work closely with my former Department to ensure that they are addressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned the cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy, which is a really important piece of work that seeks to ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere. It was informed by a public call for evidence run by the Home Office, to which we received over 180,000 responses—one of the highest numbers for pieces of evidence that the Government have ever received in a public consultation. That was quite an overwhelming response, and demonstrates the scale of the issue. The evidence includes testimonies from victims, victim support organisations, frontline professionals and academics.
In the strategy that we have published, we have set forth a number of commitments across Government. There are several strands to the strategy that we are pursuing, because it is important that we ensure that women and girls are safe, not only on the transport network but across wider society. I will highlight a couple of things that are particularly relevant to the issues that my hon. Friend has highlighted in the debate.
We often think about pedicabs being used in the night-time economy. We know that night-time is a time when women and girls feel very vulnerable, and that they are concerned about crime such as harassment in public spaces. In particular, they are concerned about that feeling or perception of being unsafe when they are walking home.
I shall highlight a couple of commitments that the Home Office has already made. We are piloting a £5 million safety of women at night fund, which is designed to prevent violence against women and girls in public spaces at night, specifically including the night-time economy. It is focused on the prevention of the crimes we have discussed, to help women to feel safe in public spaces at night, including in venues and on routes home.
Another very important fund is the safer streets fund, for which we are providing an additional £25 million. That fund has a particular focus on women and girls, and through it we are supporting a range of projects, including an initiative by the British Transport police to develop a safer travel online platform across the rail network, to make reporting easier; funding for the City of London Corporation to enable the delivery of 24 night hubs with St John Ambulance medics and plain-clothes police, to respond to incidents and to increase women’s feeling of safety; and piloting a new online tool, StreetSafe. That was developed in collaboration with the National Police Chiefs Council, and it enables people, particularly women and girls, to pinpoint locations where they have felt unsafe and to identify the features of those locations that made them feel that way. In response to such identifications, police and crime commissioners, as well as local policing teams, can use that data to support local decision making. StreetSafe is being very widely welcomed and well used. As of 12 November, 6,895 reports have been made using this particular tool, 72% of them from women, which is no surprise.
My hon. Friend and other Members will be aware that we have recently appointed a national lead in the police on the critical issue of violence against women and girls. The Home Secretary has appointed Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth, whom I have already met to discuss the work that she will do to lead on best practice in police forces across the country.
I will end my remarks by encouraging anyone who feels unsafe while they are walking around the streets or using a pedicab in my hon. Friend’s constituency, or Vauxhall, or indeed anywhere else in London, to report it—please—to the police. This issue is a priority for this Government. It is vital that women and girls feel safe, whether they are going to work, meeting their friends or going for a night out. That is a priority for the Home Secretary, for the Prime Minister and for me, and we will work tirelessly to drive the actions in the violence against women and girls strategy, both in society generally and on the public transport network. We are determined to leave no stone unturned to keep women and girls safe.
Question put and agreed to.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Before I call Tulip Siddiq, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that there are active legal proceedings in the High Court between International Military Services Ltd and Iran’s Ministry of Defence. I am exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters sub judice to allow full reference to those proceedings as they concern issues of national importance.
Colleagues, it will not have escaped your attention that the debate is massively over-subscribed. Many of you will be disappointed, but you are here showing your support, so thank you. If you intervene on colleagues and you are down to speak, you may be moved off the speakers list, because we will only get to 15 or 16 of you. There will be a three-minute limit on speeches after Tulip Siddiq has spoken.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. A lot of Members will be well versed with the details of my constituent’s case. Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been unlawfully detained in Iran for nearly six years now, separated from her young daughter and her family. She served the first five years of her first sentence and was then put under house arrest at her parents’ house, wearing an ankle tag. She then faced another charge and was sentenced to another year, and then a year’s travel ban—effectively, two more years of being separated from her family in London.
Nazanin appealed the sentence of her second case, which was rejected. At that time, her husband, Richard Ratcliffe, decided to go on hunger strike. I say to Members across the House that no one goes on hunger strike on a whim. Richard Ratcliffe went on hunger strike because he felt that he had no other option, and that this was his last resort. He went on hunger strike for three weeks outside the Foreign Office in order to capture the attention of those in the upper echelons of Government, because he does not think that they are helping with his wife’s plight. I am disappointed that in the three weeks during which Richard was starving himself outside the Foreign Office, the Prime Minister of our country did not come to visit him.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
Has the Prime Minister met my hon. Friend and Richard in recent years? What has his personal intervention been in this case? Does he keep in touch with my hon. Friend? Has he shown the leadership and compassion needed in this case?
Tulip Siddiq
The Prime Minister did meet us shortly after becoming Prime Minister, but he has not done so in recent years. After dealing with this case for nearly six years, having tabled eight urgent questions in the House, and having dealt with five Foreign Secretaries and countless Ministers, I think it is high time that the Prime Minister, knowing the details, got involved properly.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
These sentiments are shared entirely by my constituents. Like many Members here today, I have been overwhelmed by messages of support for Nazanin, Richard and the whole family. All urge the Government to act and to show solidarity with the whole family in wanting Nazanin to be freed. Could my hon. Friend please convey that to the family?
Tulip Siddiq
Richard Ratcliffe is in the Gallery and will have heard that message directly from my hon. Friend. This campaign has touched everyone, regardless of where they are in the country. A lot of Members will know that my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn is one of affluence and deprivation. When I am in Hampstead, Emma Thompson will stop me and ask, “Have you got Nazanin home?” When I am campaigning in the south Kilburn estates, people will open the door and say, “What good are you if you haven’t got that poor woman home yet?” The campaign has touched everyone; my hon. Friend is right to make that point.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for her excellent campaign. She deserves every credit. The USA has agreed to pay around $1.4 billion in moneys owed to Iran, even though it supports the sanctions against Iran. Does she agree that the UK should follow the USA’s decision by paying the £400 million, thereby ensuring Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s immediate release?
Tulip Siddiq
The hon. Gentleman has appeared at every single debate we have had on Nazanin. I thank him for all his efforts in the campaign. I will come to the debt and getting our constituents back home.
It goes without saying that the reason why my constituent is imprisoned in Iran is because of the Iranian regime. It is because of them that my constituent is away from her young family. But in six years of dealing with our Government, I have become increasingly frustrated that Ministers are ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the fact that this case is now linked to the £400 million that this country owes Iran. That is not something I want to deal with, but it is the reality of the situation. It is becoming obvious that the Iranians see the £400 million that we owe as a pre-condition to releasing Nazanin.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She said “constituents” and she is absolutely right. Nobody in this room has anything but compassion for Richard Ratcliffe and his family, but there are other constituents who are dual nationals who also need the help of the British Government. Does she agree that they are living under the most awful regime and that has to be a priority?
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will mention the other dual nationals who are imprisoned in Iran. As he says, Nazanin is not the only one.
I want to go back to the question of the debt before I take another intervention. When Nazanin was captured and put in solitary confinement in Evin prison, she was told by prison guards that the reason she was being held was because of our failure to pay this historic debt. Former President Rouhani told our Prime Minister in March this year that accelerating the payment on the debt would solve a lot of the problems in the bilateral relationship between Iran and our country. Iran’s former Foreign Minister Zarif also cited the debt in an article. There is no question but that the debt is linked to Nazanin’s case.
We have seen that it is not a coincidence: every time there is any movement on the IMS court hearing, there is some movement on Nazanin’s case. When the IMS court hearing was delayed earlier this year, Nazanin received a call a week later saying, “Come to court, because we need to speak to you.” There is no coincidence, because the two are linked. What frustrates me so much is that every time I speak to the Government, they seem to bury their head in the sand and deny that there is a link.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. I wonder whether they, like me, believe that for cases such as Nazanin’s and that of my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal, having a fully resourced consular support service that enables diplomats rather than hindering them, so that families can have confidence in that consular support, is the least that the Government can provide for them and for the rest of us?
Tulip Siddiq
I fully agree. One of the biggest disappointments has been that British officials will not go to the court hearings for Nazanin when she is called back to court. That is something we have been asking for again and again.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) makes an important point. I also wish to offer my support to the family—to Richard and Nazanin—at this very difficult time. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the level of involvement of the Prime Minister and those at senior levels in the current Administration. Will she comment on how that compares and contrasts with the level of support from previous Prime Ministers?
Tulip Siddiq
I will come to the topic of the three former Foreign Secretaries and what they have said. In terms of Prime Ministers, one of the problems that I have always had with this case is that it needs intervention from the Prime Minister, but it has not felt as though the three Prime Ministers that we have dealt with have given us that option. Bear in mind that I have asked Prime Minister’s questions to all of them and turned up at No. 10 to knock on their door every single time there has been a new Prime Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tulip Siddiq
I will take an intervention in a minute, but I want to make a little more progress.
The Leader of the House told me in March that Iran was holding us to ransom. He said that
“the UK Government do not pay for the release of hostages”—[Official Report, 11 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 1014.]
I see the logic of this principle but, in the truest form of the word, this is not a ransom; it is a debt. It is a debt that we as a country owe Iran. It was ruled in international tribunals that we owe Iran this money. Anyone hiding behind the fact that it is a ransom is wrong. They need to see the ruling in international courts to understand that we owe this money.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and congratulate her on securing the debate. I will also take this opportunity to say exactly how brave Richard has been throughout this ordeal, on behalf of his whole family. He is here today. As I am a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions, I wonder whether the hon. Lady might ask the Government this question in due course: how is it that the United States, Australia, France and Germany have all now successfully negotiated the release of their citizens who were arbitrarily detained in Iran, yet we have made no progress? Perhaps she could challenge the Government on that.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. He is absolutely right, because those countries have brought their people home. Indeed, Australia actually managed to bring Nazanin’s prison cellmate back home, while Nazanin herself is still in Iran. So I hope that the Minister will pay attention to what the right hon. Member has just said, because he makes a very important point.
Regarding the debt, I will come back to something that the Secretary of State for Defence has said:
“With regard to IMS Ltd and the outstanding legal dispute the government acknowledges there is a debt to be paid and continues to explore every legal avenue for the lawful discharge of that debt.”
So if anyone questions whether we owe the money, we definitely owe the money, as has been stated several times. It is not a ransom; it is a debt that we as a country should lawfully pay back to Iran.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Nuclear negotiations restart on 29 November and there is a risk that both Nazanin’s case and Anoosheh Ashoori’s case will be used as leverage. The negotiations are complex and we cannot risk these cases becoming entangled in them. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to have a plan in place to ensure that these cases do not get caught up in the nuclear negotiations?
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I think that Members from across the House can probably hear the frustration in my voice, because I am very worried that my constituent is getting caught up in this overall universal problem and becoming a pawn between the two countries. Her husband has maintained from day one that she is a pawn caught between the two countries, which is unacceptable.
Tulip Siddiq
I will make just a bit more progress before giving way again.
One of the things that I have been told by different Foreign Office Ministers, off and on the record, is that there are practical issues with actually paying the debt. However, if anyone has read the news this week, they will have seen that three former Foreign Secretaries have come out and said that there are ways of paying the debt without busting sanctions and without angering our western allies. For me the question is this: if we all know that the debt exists, and we have ways of paying it, what is the explanation for why we have not paid it?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Earlier the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made the point about the UK’s seeming inability to get our people who are held captive overseas released. I know that she is aware of the case of Luke Symons, my constituent who is held by the Houthis. Similarly, other countries seem to have been able to get their people held by them released. Does she think that there is something wrong in the way the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is approaching these cases?
Tulip Siddiq
That is the frustration that Nazanin expresses every time I speak to her: that her Government are not doing enough for her as a British citizen. The people she was in jail with are going home, while she is still stuck there, missing out on her daughter’s childhood.
Tulip Siddiq
The other point I will make—then I will take another intervention—is that I do not think that as a country we can take the moral high ground in relation to Iran and to Nazanin if we are not following a legal ruling that says we owe Iran money.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I thank the hon. Member for her generosity in giving way. People across south Belfast, and indeed across Northern Ireland, have expressed their distress at the forced separation of a mother and her young daughter. Does the hon. Member share my concern that the failure that this family are experiencing is part of a pattern of moral unseriousness and a lack of moral courage, which is in very stark contrast to the steadfastness and bravery that this family are somehow finding?
Tulip Siddiq
I agree with the hon. Member and thank her for her help in this campaign. I repeat the point that several other Members have already made, which is that this issue is not just about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe; it is also about Anoosheh Ashoori and Morad Tahbaz.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this essential debate. I also thank her for mentioning my constituent Anoosheh Ashoori, a 67-year-old man who is a father and a husband, and a British citizen who is also locked up in the same prison as Nazanin. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a grotesque crime for Iran to hold hostages but that it is also a crime for our country not to settle any debts that are possibly keeping the hostages there?
Tulip Siddiq
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and applaud all the work she is doing to try to free her constituent. It is sad that we have had to bond over this topic, with both of us having constituents who are imprisoned in Iran and separated from their families.
We need to pay our debt and challenge Iran, calling it out for what it is—challenging the perpetrators. But until we pay our debt, they will not even come to the negotiating table and we cannot deal with them.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
In February, the Minister assured us that the UK Government were using every tool in their diplomatic arsenal and doing everything they could to get Nazanin home. Does the hon. Lady want to ask the Minister, as I do, what is missing from those diplomatic tools, because so far they have failed to bring anything about?
Tulip Siddiq
What I would say is that in the nearly six years that Richard Ratcliffe and I have been campaigned to get Nazanin home, we have heard every platitude. We have heard about no stones being unturned. We have heard about how this issue is top of the Government’s agenda. We know it is their highest priority, but warm words are not enough any more. After six years, I want to see my constituent come home. I do not want to hear from the Government the same rhetoric over and over again, which is what we are hearing.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. I want to put on the record my heartfelt feelings on behalf of all the people in Hornsey and Wood Green. I also want to point out how long it has taken to resolve the case of my constituent Aras Amiri, who was a member of the British Council—she was almost a Foreign Office employee. There is a feeling that we all think this is inevitable, but we have to get some energy and some push in order to get Nazanin home.
Tulip Siddiq
That was a tragic case, and I know my hon. Friend fought very hard for her constituent.
Before I get to a series of questions that I want to ask the Minister, I would like to give the opportunity for anyone else to intervene.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Paisley
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing a debate on this serious matter. Is not the elephant in the room the very obvious fact that the current incumbent in Downing Street said something that was a monumental cock-up, which has had a human cost? It is now up to the Government to fix that immediately, without further delay.
Tulip Siddiq
The truth is that the Prime Minister made an enormous blunder when giving evidence to Parliament, and I hope he feels responsible for that. As a result, I hope he takes some action to bring my constituent home.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
On behalf of the people in Glasgow East, I extend my best wishes to Richard, Nazanin and Gabriella. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) mentioned the need to get energy into the effort to get Nazanin home. It is widely accepted in the House that the current Foreign Secretary is always full of energy, so can the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) tell us what the new Foreign Secretary has done to try to progress the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe?
Tulip Siddiq
I am appreciative of the fact that the new Foreign Secretary called me as soon as she was in post and said that she was dealing with Nazanin. She also called us in for a meeting, along with Richard Ratcliffe and members of his family. I am grateful that she seems to be acting on the issue, but I will judge her on what she does at the end. As I say, we have dealt with five Foreign Secretaries and none of them has brought Nazanin home yet. It is time the Foreign Secretary took some action properly.
I have to go on to my questions, but I will take some very short interventions.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her campaign. Given that Nazanin has been granted diplomatic protection, how does the hon. Lady feel that the Government are treating her case differently from other consular cases? Does she think that Anoosheh Ashoori should also be granted diplomatic protection?
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend on behalf of the people of Chesterfield. She is absolutely inspirational in the campaign that she is fighting, but I know it will mean something to her only when she gets Nazanin home. Will she tell us a bit more about the barbaric Iranian regime and the way it has operated? What is her message to the regime?
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The people of Weaver Vale send their love and compassion to Nazanin, Richard and Gabriella, and to my hon. Friend, who is a real champion of this issue. It is now important that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister do the right thing.
Tulip Siddiq
I have rarely seen such a crowded Westminster Hall debate. It demonstrates the amount of affection and concern that we have for Nazanin. I think Richard will report that back to his wife, so I thank hon. Members.
I will pick up on diplomatic protection. It is right to say that diplomatic protection was given to Nazanin by the former Foreign Secretary. We in the campaign do not feel that the Government have used that enough, because it became a state-to-state dispute the moment that diplomatic protection was given. One of the questions I have for the Minister is whether he will do something to use the diplomatic protection and try to get Nazanin home.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tulip Siddiq
I will get to my questions, if that is okay. I am conscious of the time.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
If Members have intervened on the hon. Lady already, please do not do so again. I think the hon. Lady was going to give way to Mr MacNeil and then Ms Vaz.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
If we were able to engineer a vote today on the payment of the debt, it would be unanimous. Is there a way that we can engineer a vote in the main Chamber on the debt, so that we add pressure on the Government to pay the debt and get Nazanin home?
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Ms Vaz, you are not going to get in to speak. Do you have an intervention to make?
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Very briefly, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and wish her and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) well. The Ratcliffe family, and Anoosheh Ashoori, Morad Tahbaz, who was born in Hammersmith Hospital, and Mehran Raoof are all British citizens. The Hague convention applies to them; they can get diplomatic protection. If the Minister would only look at the Hague convention, he would find that it takes other factors into account. More importantly, why do we not harness the spirit of Lewis Hamilton at the Brazilian grand prix, and realise that there is not a single obstacle that is going to stop us bringing home our Nazanin, Anoosheh, Morad and Mehran?
Several hon. Members rose—
Tulip Siddiq
I give way to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry)
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
May I put it on the record that the people of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey are fully behind Nazanin being freed? Would the hon. Lady agree that the UK Government must now act without any fear of upsetting allies such as the United States, and do what must be done to free Nazanin now?
Tulip Siddiq
I absolutely agree. I will ask the Minister a series of questions, and then I know that there are lots of hon. Members who want to speak.
Why will the Government not acknowledge that Nazanin is a hostage, and challenge Iran’s hostage-taking with sanctions or legal action? Will the Minister set out exactly what practical and legal issues he believes stand in the way of resolving the International Military Services debt, so that these can be properly scrutinised? The Government have long accepted that they owe the debt as a matter of international law. Do the Government think that they are entitled to ignore their legal obligations and the rule of law? Have the Government made a specific offer to Iran to discharge the debt through humanitarian assistance, such as the provision of medicine? Have the Government sought or received assurance from the US, in the form of a comfort letter, that no bank will be sanctioned or fined for facilitating the payment of the debt? Finally, a Foreign Office Minister, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, said in the Lords yesterday that,
“were the Government to pay hundreds of millions of pounds to the Iranian Government, that would undoubtedly be seen as payment for a hostage situation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 November 2021; Vol. 816, c. 18.]
Is that the view of the Government?
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Colleagues, many of you are not going to get called. I will give those I do call three minutes, but if you speak for less, more people will get in. Please stop taking photographs; you know that you are not meant to take photographs.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I will focus on the money that we owe Iran for the tanks that we never delivered even though the Shah’s regime had paid for them before the Iranian revolution of 1979. The United States was in a similar position to us, and apparently owed $1.7 billion to the Iranian regime. However, it was reported that the Obama Administration returned that money, via Switzerland and in other than US currency, on 17 January 2016, 22 January 2016 and 5 February 2016. On 17 January, by chance, four US prisoners were released from Iranian jails. The Obama Administration, of course, denied that there was any connection.
On 30 June 2016, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much the MOD owed Iran for Chieftain tanks that were never delivered. The answer that I received was that the MOD did not dispute that the money was owed, but that EU sanctions stopped repayment. There is no doubt that we owe Iran £400 million, and it should be given back. With luck, if we repay the money, the supreme leader, who is the only person who will make the decision, may be magnanimous enough to order the release of not just Nazanin but all the other British prisoners held in jail in Iran. As we have always owed that money, I can live with the idea that we have not been blackmailed into returning £400 million for military equipment that we never delivered.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing the debate and on her hard work on this serious issue. I pay tribute to her constituent, who is sitting behind me. Along with many other MPs, I was privileged to visit him during his hunger strike.
The facts are stark. A British citizen has been detained for five and a half years on unsubstantiated allegations of spying. Successive Conservative Foreign Secretaries have failed to secure her freedom. No less than three distinguished former Foreign Secretaries have said that the debt to Iran should be paid so that Nazanin can come home.
I will keep my comments brief. There have been some good articles about the case in the newspapers over the weekend, particularly The Times and The Observer. I am grateful to them for informing the questions that I will ask of the Minister.
First, why is the Prime Minister still refusing to settle the acknowledged £400 million debt to Iran incurred before the ’79 revolution? Why has he let that unjustified failure to pay up bedevil the talks? Why are the Government saying that bank transfer restrictions arising from international sanctions prevent payment? Is that not untrue? Surely the Government can find legal ways around rules that they helped to create. As we have already heard, the United States settled a similar debt in return for the release of four American hostages.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The hon. and learned Lady is presenting a forensic case in her usual style. Does she agree with the International Observatory of Human Rights that one way around that issue might be to use humanitarian aid?
Joanna Cherry
Yes, indeed. I will come to that.
Secondly, why has the Prime Minister failed to honour the personal promise to pay the debt that he made as Foreign Secretary to Mr Ratcliffe and, indirectly, to the Iranians? That promise was a blatant attempt to compensate for the disastrous blunder that we have heard about when he misrepresented Nazanin’s activities in Tehran. Why will the Prime Minister not keep his word and his promises, particularly when the life of a young mother is at stake?
Thirdly, why are the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary persisting with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s non-confrontational softly-softly approach? Let us be honest: the Government are not exactly known for their non-confrontational softly-softly approach when it comes to the European Union or the vexed question of the north of Ireland. In this respect, their approach has failed completely. It is not about paying a ransom; it is about the credibility of the British Government abroad and the confidence of British citizens in their Government. When will the Prime Minister take a tougher line with Iran than with the European Union?
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this important debate and for her unyielding determination to keep the issue in the public’s consciousness and alive in Parliament. Nazanin and her family have been subjected to the utmost cruelty—a never-ending emotional torture. Just when they think that freedom is within their grasp, it is ripped away again. Where does somebody go from here and what do they do?
Richard asked himself that question. He has raised the issue with a series of Secretaries of State and Prime Ministers. He has involved the media in the UK and what independent voices there are in Tehran. When I spoke to him when I visited him a few times in the last couple of weeks, he said that the only thing he felt he could now do was starve himself. I ask how hopeless, powerless and desperate someone must be to feel that the only thing they can do is go on hunger strike—endure 21 days of not eating, while at the same time being prepared to see people, greet people and do interviews, explaining again and again what their situation is, in the hope that something will budge.
Throughout, Richard has remained utterly gracious. He has asked himself, “How do I break this stalemate? What do I do to make sure that my wife, and other British citizens in the same situation, are not forgotten? How do I make sure that their lives do not disappear in a pile of paperwork pushed to the back of a desk?” Nazanin has endured the most profound mental and physical trauma throughout her imprisonment, tortuous heartbreak caused by prolonged separation from her loved ones. She has been subjected to prolonged periods of solitary confinement, vastly inadequate living conditions, and traumatising interrogation. Her treatment has been utterly appalling.
How do we end this nightmare? So far, diplomatic routes have not worked. The sticking point is a £400 million historical debt relating to a sale of Chieftain tanks, paid for but never received, dating back to the 1970s. To date, there have been conversations, discussions, deliberations, articles and newspaper coverage, but words alone are no longer enough: it is time for action. Can the Minister today let us know what that action will be, so that Nazanin can come home where she rightly belongs, with her family?
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Charles. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing today’s debate, and on the relentless tenacity she has shown in highlighting the injustice of Nazanin’s incarceration at every opportunity. I of course wish to pay tribute to Richard Ratcliffe as well: I have had the privilege of meeting him on a number of occasions, and each time he has been a picture of calm, dignity and resolve. Goodness knows what he must be feeling inside, yet despite that unimaginable torment, he has always conducted himself in a way that is a credit to himself and to Nazanin. To have gone on hunger strike for three weeks, having done so previously and suffered the agonies of it already, and knowing the damage it can do to a person, shows the level of desperation he must feel at a seemingly intractable situation in which hope can be cruelly snatched away. That must be the hardest thing of all to take.
Many of my constituents have been in touch to register their support for the release of Nazanin. Understandably, they have been moved by the plight of a mother separated from her husband and child, but they have also been motivated to contact me because of what they see as a failure of the UK Government to take decisive action. We all know that diplomacy is a fine art and that nuance is required, but there is no room for doubt here: this is an injustice and an intolerable situation, and every opportunity should be taken to right this wrong. Many of my constituents believe, as I do and as we have heard today, that more can be done. We have heard some examples of what that might look like.
The entire history of this situation does not need repeating, but it is worth repeating that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been imprisoned for crimes that she did not commit. I use the word “crimes” with a heavy caveat: we should resist talking about this situation in terms of crimes committed, because this is not a criminal justice matter but a political one. She is a victim of the long-standing dispute between Iran and this country over the £400 million it says is owed by the UK Government. It seems to me that until we have a public acknowledgment that that dispute lies at the root of this situation, we shall struggle to move forward, so will we get such an acknowledgment today from the Minister? Will that then lead to an approach based on Nazanin effectively being a hostage, for whom a ransom is sought?
We can be in no doubt that the Government’s approach thus far has been ineffective, and in some instances counterproductive. I noted with interest that the Government will not disclose how many dual nationals currently find themselves in the same position. One can probably conclude from that fact that there are others, which prompts the question: where does this end? How many more innocent people could find themselves pawns in a game that they have no control over, and which their own Government seem unwilling to take steps to resolve? I also ask the Minister what efforts are being made to gather international support, and what other diplomatic and financial levers can be pulled to bring about a satisfactory resolution, because we cannot accept that no more can be done. We cannot accept that this is just the way it is, or that such a gross injustice can be tolerated, and the support that we are seeing from Members today shows that this Parliament does not accept that nothing more can be done.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I salute the quiet dignity of Richard Ratcliffe, who is one of the bravest people I have ever met. I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her campaigning. We are from different parties, but she makes me proud to be a Member of this House.
How do we get Nazanin, Anoosheh, Morad and Mehran home? If it were ransom money, heartbreaking though it is, we should not pay it, because it would only lead to more hostages being taken. But it is not ransom money; it is a historical debt that we owe Iran. The debt should not be linked to this case, but it is, and that is why we should pay it. It is not easy to do because of sanctions, but with political will it can be done. No country can have a veto over a sovereign Britain deciding to pay its debt, not least the United States, because it did exactly the same thing under President Obama.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
When the right hon. Gentleman was Foreign Secretary, were they advised by senior civil servants that this money would not be paid, and what was the answer in Cabinet?
Jeremy Hunt
I believe that during the period when I was Foreign Secretary, the decision whether we owed that money was settled. There was an understanding, confirmed publicly by the Defence Secretary, that the money is owed and should be paid. It was going to take, and will take, a real effort to deal with the practicalities. But the Americans managed it and we can most certainly manage it, if necessary by getting an RAF plane to fly gold over to Tehran. There are lots of ways of doing it.
Jeremy Hunt
I will make some progress. One other thing needs to happen to ensure that Nazanin and the other dual nationals can come home: we must completely de-link their fates from the outcome of the Vienna talks on the joint comprehensive plan of action. Just as we tell Iran it should not make anyone a pawn in a diplomatic game, we too must live by those words and ensure they are not being used in any way by any country to put pressure on Iran to sign up to that deal. Their fates should be completely separate.
This is a terrible tragedy. It is a shame not just on Iran but on Britain that it has taken us five and a half years to solve it. There must be two outcomes: first, the reuniting of all the families who have been separated by this vile detention in Iran, including Nazanin’s family; and secondly, the legacy of this tragedy must be the end of the vile practice of hostage diplomacy, which must be consigned back to the 19th century where it belongs. Britain needs to learn from this to lead a diplomatic initiative with other countries, so that if someone is taken hostage from one country, we treat it as if they had been taken hostage from any of us. We act accordingly; we deter it and it never happens again.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this important debate and on her hard work so far.
Unjustly convicted, denied basic human rights and tortured—Richard Ratcliffe is rightly desperate as his wife has to undergo this cruel ordeal. It is heartbreaking that, once again, Richard has had to resort to the life-threatening action of a hunger strike. I visited Richard on day 16 of his strike. The pain in his eyes was harrowing. He just wants the Government to act. To go 21 days without food is testament to Richard’s love for his wife and his resolution to get the attention this issue rightly needs. The risks and symptoms of going on the strike are huge. After two weeks, people on hunger strike will have difficulty standing. They suffer severe dizziness, sluggishness and loss of co-ordination. After two or three weeks, it can result in severe neurological problems—vision loss and lack of motor skills. That is the love that Richard has shown for his wife.
Nazanin’s reaction to her husband’s strike brought me to tears at the weekend. She was worried sick about her husband. My heart breaks that this family is caught up in this dispute between two states. I want to address Nazanin directly, if she is able to see this debate. Nazanin, you can see the love and support right across this Parliament. I want to assure you that we, as representatives up and down this country, will not stop until you are free, home and reunited with your family and daughter. I pay tribute to the whole family, who are always there to support Richard, Gabriella and Nazanin. Richard’s sister Rachel lives in Cardiff and is always there for them, always looking for the positive and determined to bring a positive outcome.
Let us be clear: the blame lies firmly at the Prime Minister’s door. He could resolve this issue by paying the debt to Iran, yet he refuses to do so. On Monday, Zac Goldsmith told peers that paying the debt owed by the UK would be seen as payment for a hostage, and would not be in the Government’s interest. Well, Zac, tell that to this family.
Paying a debt is not paying a ransom. It has been ordered by an international court. It is clear this case could have been resolved many months ago. As well as Nazanin, we must not forget Anoosheh, Morad and Mehran—we must bring them home too. I hope this debate is a turning point, and that the Government will do everything in their power to bring them home.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I join the tributes to Richard Ratcliffe—it is great to see that he is able to join us—and to his entire family, some of whom live in my constituency, whose resilience and bravery have been truly remarkable during this long period. I also join the tributes to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), whose campaigning has been exemplary; many of us have been delighted to assist her in that.
I will make two points in the time available to me about the linkage of debt repayment to the detention of UK nationals and about the sanctions regime. First, I understand entirely and agree with the Government’s rejection of any suggestion by Iran that there is a connection between the repayment of a decades-old commercial debt and the release of UK citizens. However, I urge the Minister and his colleagues not to be hamstrung by what I might call the mirror image problem. Failing to repay a debt that would otherwise be repayable for fear of it being linked to the release of UK detainees is, in itself, to make a linkage that the Government have been at pains to say does not exist. If the debt should be repaid—and it seems clear that it should, subject to the remaining legal proceedings—then it should be repaid.
The UK’s adherence to standards of behaviour that states should maintain—standards which we argue Iran is not maintaining—demands that the debt be repaid promptly. How such a repayment is perceived should not, as a matter of principle, prevent us from making it.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the failure to pay an acknowledged debt creates a fig leaf for the Iranian Government to hide behind? It is not a matter of it being connected; it is an obstruction to things moving forward.
Jeremy Wright
I understand entirely the point made by the hon. Lady. However, as I say, I do not think it is necessary to accept any linkage—positive or negative, by the Iranians or by the UK—to justify the decision to repay a debt that is legally repayable. We should do that for its own reasons and for its own sake, regardless of what else may be happening.
That brings me to the issue of the sanctions regime as an obstacle to repayment. It seems that we require more ingenuity and more innovation. Certainly, in so far as my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues are concerned, I accept that a huge amount of personal effort has been put into this case. However, as others have said, something is still missing, and that may be the innovation that we need to find.
The debt predates the sanctions regime that we see as an obstacle to making the repayment. The purpose of that sanctions regime is to prevent the enrichment of Iran during the course of the sanctions period, but it does not seem to me that this repayment would do that. The repayment of the debt would, in effect, put Iran in the position it would have been in if the obligation had been fulfilled when it should have been—well prior to the beginning of the sanctions regime.
I know better than many that the Minister has access to some exceptionally good lawyers in government. I hope that he is instructing those lawyers to use their best imagination and innovation to find ways of resolving this legal problem, because that is what we will require to break this deadlock. I know he will do his best, but I hope that he will give instructions to apply innovation and ingenuity to the case, as well as simply effort.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on the way she has taken up this cause? I also pay tribute to Richard Ratcliffe and his whole family. The case has touched the hearts of the entire nation; 200 of my constituents have written in. I first heard of it when Richard’s aunt Rosemary and Colin came to see me in my advice surgery. As their MP at that moment, I said I would do everything I could to help. Now, as Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I intend to do the same.
It has been 2,000 days since the first detention. Since then, there have been eight urgent questions and 125 written questions from Members across the House. This is the third debate we have had on this, and yet Nazanin is still not home. To add another number, this is the fifth Foreign Secretary during that time, one of whom became Prime Minister. While he was Foreign Secretary he caused his own problems in this case. No offence to the Minister, but I find it regrettable that we have yet to see the current Foreign Secretary making statements to the House, because people watch what happens in Parliament. If they indicate that it is a priority, then I believe that that is what needs to happen.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for bringing the debate. Amid this talk of international diplomacy, sanctions and payments, when my constituents write to me about this case, they want to express their huge sympathy for Richard and particularly his daughter. Gabriella was just 22 months old when her mother was imprisoned. When I had the pleasure of speaking to Richard recently, he told me that now she is in the UK she is doing really well at her school, but my heart goes out to them. I want to express, on behalf of my constituents, how for them this is really about reuniting a mother with her daughter.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I will not give another speaker another minute. You get one injury-time minute; I will not give any more time if you give way again. That goes for all colleagues.
Layla Moran
As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) says, the reason this has touched the hearts of so many people is that they can imagine being in this position.
The Government need to acknowledge that they are state hostages—they have been taken hostage by the Iranian state—and the problem is that there is no way to tackle this internationally. Will the Minister update us on any progress on the Foreign Affairs Committee recommendation to work with the United Nations to create an internationally recognised definition for state hostage-taking, so that this does not happen to other families in future?
It is clear that the Government have got themselves into a bit of a twist over what they think of the debt. Either it is linked or it is not. In my view, it is not linked. We owe the debt; we should pay the debt. It is now increasingly clear that there are ways in which that could happen. I would say, call their bluff. If the Iranian Government say that there is a debt, remove the barrier. If they still do not release the hostages, we show the Iranian Government for the wicked regime that it is. I do not see a downside to doing that.
In closing, I simply want to express my wholehearted support for anything the Government can do, so that this is the last debate on this matter. A standing-room-only debate in Westminster Hall shows that this Parliament cares. I know the Minister cares. I would like to think that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister care, but I do know that the whole country cares. We just want Nazanin home.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I have received more than 100 emails from constituents on this matter, which shows that the case of Nazanin has touched the hearts of the nation. It is all too common for people to claim that the situation is Kafkaesque. To me, as an avid reader of Kafka, the similarity between current cases and that of Josef K in “The Trial” are all too apparent. Kafka himself described the seeming basis of the Iranian judicial system when he wrote in “The Trial” that
“it’s characteristic of this judicial system that a man is condemned not only when he’s innocent but also in ignorance.”
Nazanin was charged and convicted without adequate representation or due process—indeed, condemned in ignorance. Like other hon. Members—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq)—I call on the Foreign Secretary, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Minister to press the Iranian Government on a number of issues that my constituents, Amnesty International and I have raised. They should press them to allow Nazanin any specialist medical care she may require; apply without discrimination article 58 of the Islamic penal code, which allows for someone to be conditionally released after serving a third of their prison sentence and would ensure the immediate release of Nazanin; ensure that Nazanin has regular access to a lawyer of her choice; allow Nazanin to be in contact with her family, including relatives abroad; and allow her to communicate with British consular officials—although that seems to be a contentious issue. I ask the Minister to respond to those points.
The United Kingdom has a well-deserved international reputation for its justice system. I hope that the Government will press for the most basic justice in Iran for our citizens, whether they are British citizens or dual citizens, and particularly for Nazanin. It is clear from the contributions to this debate that that is completely and utterly lacking.
Sir Charles, that was the speech I made in this place on 18 July 2017—word for word. In fact, it was my first speech in this place. I ask the Minister: what has changed? The answer is very little. What has the FCDO managed to do in the last four and a half years? It has failed to secure Nazanin’s release. Four and a half years of failure—a litany of failure at the Department’s door. I call on the Minister to answer the points raised in this debate and ensure that our debt to the Iranian Government is repaid—a debt that was incurred not by the last Government or the Government before them, but by the Government who were in power when I was in nursery school. It is all the more important that we ensure that the UK honours its international obligations. We have failed to do so, and Nazanin is paying the price.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this debate. I know that she has been a great source of support for the Ratcliffe family with her campaigning.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is being held as a political hostage in Iran. Her life is being used as a bargaining chip in a diplomatic game between Britain and Iran. In September, in order to mark Nazanin’s 2,000th day in detention, Richard Ratcliffe and their daughter Gabriella stood on a large snakes and ladders board in Parliament Square that represented the ups and down, twists and turns and false dawns that this family have endured. Gabriella has been separated from her mother for most of her young life; Richard has been separated from his wife. Nazanin has endured terrible mistreatment, and Amnesty International rightly describes her as a victim of torture.
As so many colleagues have done, I want to pay tribute to Richard Ratcliffe and his unwavering determination to keep Nazanin’s case at the top of the agenda. I have met him during both his first and second hunger strikes to show him solidarity and support. The strength, determination and dignity that he continues to show is heroic. The Government’s response to the escalation of Nazanin’s ordeal in Iran has rightly been described as pitiful. In May this year, the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), said that Iran’s treatment of Nazanin “amounts to torture” and that she is being
“held unlawfully…as a matter of international law.”
The strengthening of the language being used by Ministers is welcome, but it is just words—the Government have to act. We need to know why the Government are not acting to bring British hostages home.
In her eighth urgent question on Nazanin’s case recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn asked the Minister to acknowledge that Nazanin is a hostage, to resolve the £400 million debt issue—I am pleased that so many Members have raised that today—and to work to secure an end to hostage taking. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), rightly called for a fundamental rethink of the Government’s approach to Nazanin. It is long past time for an urgent intervention from the Prime Minister, and for a new strategy to bring Nazanin home. The strength of support in this standing-room only Westminster Hall debate shows how much support there is in this House for that urgent action.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I am going to annoy colleagues by dropping the speaking time to two minutes, and none of you is going to get injury time for interventions—I want to get you all in.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this debate. Almost exactly a year ago, on 3 November 2020, the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the Government,
“from the Prime Minister down, remain committed to doing everything we can for her.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 185.]
In the intervening 12 months, nothing has changed. Nazanin is no closer to being released, her daughter is no nearer to being reunited with her mother, and her husband, Richard, has been forced into enduring yet another hunger strike to highlight her case. Since her detention in April 2016, five Foreign Secretaries have promised to explore every avenue, leave no stone unturned and work tirelessly to secure her release. However, there has been no progress.
Last year, when the Defence Secretary finally acknowledged that there is a debt and a debt has to be repaid, it suddenly felt like progress; it felt like perhaps there was a breakthrough. The Minister himself admitted that they were exploring ways to repay this debt.
A year ago it felt like negotiations were at a delicate stage, when one misspoken word could set the whole process back. Yet here we are, stuck in the same situation as we were then. The inescapable conclusion must therefore be that this Government are actually not serious about securing the release of Nazanin. They have had so many chances, so many opportunities, and every single one of them has been missed.
I visited Richard twice during his hunger strikes, and on both occasions I was struck by his resolve to not sit meekly back and wait for debates to take their course. The Government are letting the people down; they are letting Nazanin down, and there is a seven-year-old girl stuck in the middle. Minister, it is not good enough. The public are not with you. Richard Ratcliffe is not going to go away, and neither are his supporters in this House.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Like others, I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), not just for securing this debate but for her tireless and unwavering commitment to her constituents.
I have had the pleasure of meeting Richard on a number of occasions: first, outside the Iranian embassy while on hunger strike, and most recently outside the Foreign Office, also while on hunger strike. I cannot begin to imagine the living hell he has endured over the past five years, yet he has only ever acted with the utmost dignity and decency. His dedication to his wife and devotion to his family are a true inspiration. The pain, the cruelty, and the unfairness to which Nazanin and many others have been subjected is, sadly, all too routine for the Iranian regime. Their fates should not be tied to geopolitics and arms deals, but they are.
We are all well versed in the complexities of these cases, the issues around breach of sanctions, arguments about interest, the relationship with the US. However, one thing is clear: we do owe that debt. Former Foreign Secretaries have said that we should pay that debt. The Defence Secretary has said that we should pay that debt. An international court has said that we should pay that debt. The Prime Minister said that we would pay that debt. There is a plan to free Nazanin, but the Government, for whatever reason, have so far chosen not to pursue it. That has come at an immeasurable cost to Nazanin, Richard, Gabriella and the many other families affected.
I want to take this opportunity to urge the Minister—and I know that he cares about these matters—to do whatever it takes to prevent those who have been ripped apart from being kept apart for much longer. No one should be forced to starve themselves just to get their family back, and the last thing any of us want is to see Richard on hunger strike again. The torment must not continue, and we look to the Government to ensure that it does not.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I would also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this really important debate.
Like many in this House, I visited Richard a couple of weeks ago outside the Foreign Office, to see him and the measures he has taken. It is something he should never have had to do. For five and a half years, Nazanin and her young family have felt the horrific pain of separation as a result of an unjust and arbitrary detention. In May last year, the previous Foreign Secretary outlined that the treatment of Nazanin “amounts to torture”. I agree with this assessment.
Not only is Nazanin’s treatment unimaginably cruel, but our position internationally is weakened if we do not appear to have a diplomatic solution to look after our own citizens. Unfortunately, the Government have not explored the full suite of diplomatic levers to get her home, so I urge them to act today and bring this case to the fore.
Last Christmas many of us spent a number of days away from our families and loved ones. We felt the pain of not being able to see them. This evening, after today’s debates, after we have all voted and had dinner, we will all go home to our families. We will tuck our children in. We will see our grandchildren. Nazanin will not have that; Richard will not have that; Gabriella will not have that. They have been going through this hell for years, and it is time for it to end. I hope that today the Minster will outline what key actions he will be leading to change the situation.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her tremendously eloquent, passionate, and absolutely relentless pursuit of this cause. She has been an absolute credit to her constituents. I too am grateful for the opportunity to express my solidarity and support for Nazanin and her family, and I do so on behalf of my constituents in Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. Many of them have been in touch to express their shock at the continuing torture that Nazanin endures as a hostage in Iran.
Like pretty much everyone else in the Chamber, I have had the privilege—and it was a privilege—of meeting Richard a couple of times at the Iranian embassy and then at the Foreign Office. It is appalling that he has felt compelled to go on hunger strike twice just to seek justice for his family. I hope it gives him some heart to see the huge cross-party support on display today.
First and foremost, our starting point is condemnation of the Iranian regime. How it has acted and continues to act is absolutely appalling, but today we have the opportunity to ask, and we must ask, questions of the UK Government. My constituents want to know what the strategy is. We almost need to ask whether there is a strategy. I appreciate that there are no easy answers to such situations, but we are entitled to see evidence of a concerted strategy and one that is being pursued energetically. Sadly, we are not convinced that that is the case.
It has been rightly asked why other countries have managed to secure releases, but the UK has not. It is beyond doubt that it is linked to the IMS debt that is legally due. Why is that not being paid? Why are the Government unable even to speak about it when previously they appeared very willing to make promises and raise expectations?
While it is welcome that diplomat protection was granted to Nazanin, how has it been used by the Government? What practical difference has it made? If it is useful, will others be granted the same status? These are just some of the questions that my constituents and I would love to see answered, and we will continue to push for answers along with colleagues across the House.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate, and I hope Richard can feel the support, warmth and love for him in the room today. I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her tenacity and commitment to the Zaghari-Ratcliffe family, as well as her compassion. She has done so much to help and champion Nazanin’s case. In my constituency of Newport West, this case is personal. Richard Ratcliffe’s sister Rebecca is a constituent of mine, so I was determined to speak today. I thank Rebecca for being in touch ahead of the debate, and I thank all the people from across Newport West who have written to me about Nazanin in recent days.
There is no doubt that the failure to get Nazanin home with her family and friends lies at the door of No. 10 Downing Street and on the desk of this Prime Minister. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House exactly what the Prime Minister has done since July 2019 to get Nazanin home. Can he tell us precisely how many meetings the Prime Minister has had on the issue? Can he outline what efforts are being made to ensure Nazanin is home in time for Christmas? Nazanin’s lovely husband Richard has previously said that this Government’s inability to secure his wife’s return home is “a failure of diplomacy”. What does the Minister say to that?
I am here in the debate as a mother and a wife, but most importantly as a parliamentarian. I feel a massive obligation to Richard, Gabriella, Rebecca and all the family to press the Minister in the strongest terms. So far this Government have failed to get Nazanin home, so I urge the Minister to get back to the Foreign Office and make it very clear to the Foreign Secretary that this simply cannot go on. We need Nazanin home in the UK, and we need her home now.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I can be brief because there is so much agreement across the House on this point, but I put on the record the SNP’s deep appreciation for the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for bringing the debate forward and her dogged pursuit of the issue. The SNP has a deep respect for the profound dignity of Richard Ratcliffe, who is obviously undergoing a living hell in this situation and deserves the cross-party support that is evident today.
I also put on record that I do not think the Minister is part of the problem. I think he has been diligent and is carrying the can for a story of other people’s failures, because this is a story of failure. The fact that Nazanin and others have not been released when they are clearly political hostages is something that should give us all deep cause for concern. It is up to all of us to find solutions to the problem.
I have two concrete points that I will make and be grateful for a response on. There is clearly agreement across the House that the historical £400 million debt does need to be repaid. What consideration have the Government given to translating that debt into humanitarian aid or some sort of other payment that would be a face-saving mechanism and also a more legally sound way of making that payment? Surely that would move things on.
Parallel to that—because I do not think it should just be carrot; I think we need some stick as well—what consideration have the Government given to Magnitsky sanctions on individuals within the Iranian regime to focus minds that this is an intolerable situation that cannot stand? The Minister will get great support across the House if he takes these measures forward—certainly from the SNP. We want to see Nazanin and the other people home as soon as possible.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I will be brief because I very much want to hear what the Minister has to say in response. The whole House owes a debt to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for the way she has pursued this case for so long—I remember having a conversation with her when Nazanin was first taken prisoner. We should all also admire Richard for the way he has campaigned so effectively despite his suffering. As a result of that, this is the largest Westminster Hall turnout I can remember.
Obviously, the debt is owed and must be paid. If this country wants respect for behaving in the proper manner, the debt should be paid. It is not a negotiation; it is saying “This money is owed. Let’s pay it.” I believe that would help to unlock a lot of things, and help to open up a serious human rights dialogue with Iran in the future, which is necessary. While we are here today, concentrating on Nazanin’s release—which I completely support—I would put on record that we should also be calling for the release of Anoosheh Ashoori, Mehran Raoof and Morad Tahbaz, who are in a similar situation. I hope that, in the context of a changed and renewed relationship with Iran, they would be released.
I want to see decent human rights everywhere around the world, and that obviously includes Iran. The people of Iran deserve that. We should do everything we can to ensure that happens. I hope the Minister can unlock this—maybe not completely today but I hope it can be unlocked—and that he will have got the message of the strength of feeling, from everybody across our House, for her release.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Thank you, colleagues; we finish with 45 seconds to spare before going to Front Bench wind-ups.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles; congratulations on chairing the debate so effectively. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on giving so many people the opportunity to share her passion and frustration over the situation that Nazanin, Richard and Gabriella are all in. We all express our personal solidarity with them today, along with that of the thousands—probably tens or hundreds of thousands—of constituents represented by the voices here.
I hope you will indulge me, Sir Charles, if I recognise the SNP and Plaid Members who are either here or have been to visit Richard, but have not been able to speak. Those are my hon. Friends the Members for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), for Gordon (Richard Thomson), for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), and for North Down (Stephen Farry). We all believe that enough is enough; it is time for action.
I first met Richard outside the Iranian embassy in 2019, and had the privilege of meeting him again outside the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. He said it was one thing to keep vigil outside the embassy of the country that is holding his wife hostage—let us make no mistake; that is what Nazanin is, and that is the first thing the Minister ought to put on record today—but it is another to have to protest, and to go on hunger strike, outside his own Government’s buildings because of their inaction and unwillingness or inability to carry out their basic duty of care for one of their own citizens.
The Government repeatedly say they are doing everything they can but, as we have heard in this debate, that is patently not the case, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and many others have said. It is clear that the repayment of debt is a major issue, and one that, if resolved, would bring about a major shift in Iranian policy. The right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) has said as much, and others have said how that could be done.
Sadly, the feedback that we have had—the result of the hunger strike—was a series of increasingly frustrating meetings that made the family and all campaigners feel that no progress is being made. That is despite, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) says, other countries in recent years, including the United States, Australia, France and Germany, all successfully negotiating the release of their citizens who have been arbitrarily detained in Iran—but Britain has not secured any releases.
We have also heard the cases of Anoosheh Ashoori, Mehran Raoof and Morad Tahbaz, all of whom, interestingly—my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said this to me in conversation—are dual nationals. I wonder if that makes the UK Government feel they have some sort of diminished responsibility for them, but a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), Jagtar Singh Johal, remains incarcerated in India, so there has to be more; more can be done and must be done.
Saying that diplomatic protection exists is one thing, but acting on it is another. I pay tribute to the point made by the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and to the fact that, week after week, she raised this at business questions. She did that on behalf of all of us in the House who take an interest in that case, and I do not think the Government would be as responsive if not for her continuing to do that. That should be recognised.
Having the right to diplomatic protection means there should be a right to private consular meetings and immediate access to medical examination by an independent doctor. The Government could issue a formal protest to the Iranian authorities; they could summon the Iranian Ambassador—they summoned the French Ambassador after all. They could propose to the Iranian authorities the immediate commencement of formal negotiations to resolve the dispute; they could send a detailed legal memorandum to the Iranian authorities outlining the breaches of international law arising from their detention of these British nationals; and they should assert under international law their right to provide assistance. Consular assistance is important to all of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). I hope there will be a further debate on that in the Chamber very soon.
Throughout the Brexit campaign and, indeed, the independence referendum campaign, we were always told how proud we should be of our British passports. Well, the British passport says:
“Her Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary”.
That is what it says on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s passport. The question for the Government today is: what are they doing to make it a reality?
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. Like other Members, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this debate and on all her incredible work on behalf of her constituents. Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been held in Iran for five and a half years. Like many here, I visited Richard, her husband, on two occasions outside the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and I want to pay tribute to him for his determination and incredible resolve.
Many MPs and members of the public visited Richard during his hunger strike. In his final speech outside the FCDO, looking back at his time on hunger strike, he said that it had always been important to him that everyone who visited him had been united against injustice. We all pay tribute to Richard and, as others have said, the fight will go on.
Last week, there were talks between the Government and the Iranian deputy Foreign Minister. Unfortunately, yet again, there was no progress. Nor has there been progress on the cases of other dual nationals, including Anoosheh Ashoori and Morad Tahbaz. Both men are not in good health and, like Nazanin, are being arbitrarily detained on spurious fabricated charges. Anoosheh Ashoori has not been granted diplomatic protection by the UK Government and has not been allowed out of prison. Morad Tahbaz was one of eight conservationists held by the Iranian authorities. Amnesty International has said that there was evidence that those eight had been tortured to obtain false confessions.
Everyone here is united in believing that those detentions are wrong and totally unjust. Surely, all this has gone on long enough. For more than five years, British Governments have tried and failed to secure the release of Nazanin and the other dual nationals. If there has been a Government strategy during this time, it has clearly failed.
A number of Members have mentioned the debt of £400 million which Britain owes Iran. The money was paid to the United Kingdom by Iran over 40 years ago for 1,500 Chieftain tanks which were never delivered. The Government have said that bank transfer transactions are not possible because of restrictions but, as we all know, if the Government had the will to settle the debt, one way or another the payment would be made.
I am not suggesting that any sort of ransom is paid by our Government, but if the money is owed and there is no question but that that is the case, the debt should be settled. In fact, when the Prime Minister was Foreign Secretary, he made a promise to Richard Ratcliffe that the debt would be paid. Significantly, in 2014, the current Defence Secretary described the unpaid debt as “a sorry story”. He said the whole issue had been,
“marred by double dealing and obfuscation”.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 11 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 103WH.]
More recently, a number of distinguished former Foreign Secretaries, Conservative and Labour, have said that the debt should be paid. That is also the view of many international and legal commentators, and it is our view as well. As the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), who is a former Foreign Secretary, has said, this is not about paying a ransom. It is about the UK’s credibility and doing what is right.
On numerous occasions, we have been told by the Government that they are doing their best and that it would be unwise to rock the boat, but it has to be said that the Government’s approach has failed abysmally. Now is surely the time to take off the kid gloves and to be vigorous and determined. Nazanin, Anoosheh Ashoori, Morad Tahbaz and all the dual nationals need to be brought back home. The time for discreet pressure and cautious words is long past. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what plan of action the Government now have for bringing our people home.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Minister, please leave about 90 seconds at the end, to allow Ms Siddiq to wind up.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing the debate and for her tireless work in supporting Nazanin and Richard and in championing this issue. Although there have been times when we have disagreed, it is absolutely right that I put on the record our respect for the hon. Lady’s passion.
The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) mentioned her support for the family of her constituent, and right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about the work that they have done to support family members of those in Iran. Other Members were unable to attend the debate because of ministerial duties—I think particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), who speaks to me regularly about the situation and who is the constituency MP for some of the members of Richard and Nazanin’s family.
Like all Members of the House and everyone in the country, I have huge sympathy for the families of those who are incarcerated in Iran. The Government will continue to do everything we can to resolve the situation in which they find themselves through no fault of their own. The ongoing suffering that Iran is inflicting on British dual nationals such as Anoosheh Ashoori and Morad Tahbaz is deeply distressing and rightly elicits very strong feelings from hon. Members of different parties. I cannot overstate the fact that the Government share that frustration and are unwavering in our commitment to resolve this issue. We have made it clear to the Iranian Government at every stage that we expect Iran to release all British dual nationals and allow them to return home to their families.
In today’s debate, we are focusing primarily on Nazanin, Richard and Gabriella. The UK Government continue to work tirelessly to secure Nazanin’s full, permanent release and ability to return home to her family. As right hon. and hon. Members are aware, Nazanin was released on furlough into the care of her parents in Tehran in 2020, but the Iranian system has refused to let her return home and has not left her alone during the period of furlough. The Government have kept up our campaign of pressure on the Iranian authorities throughout this time, and we will not relent until she is fully and permanently released.
The completion of Nazanin’s first sentence and the removal of her ankle tag in March 2021 should have been a time for happiness and enabled Nazanin to be reunited with Richard and Gabriella. Instead, Iran doubled down on its baseless charges against her. We have raised our objections at every stage, and when those charges were formalised at a court hearing in April, we summoned the Iranians and demanded that she be released. When her appeal was rejected in October and her sentence confirmed, we again objected in the strongest terms and demanded her release. The Foreign Secretary and this Government continue to be clear in our discussions with Iran that under no circumstances should Nazanin be returned to prison, that we would react strongly if she were and that she should instead be allowed to return home to her family immediately. The Foreign Secretary raised this point again with Foreign Minister Amir-Abdollahian, most recently on 8 November. I raised this issue again with the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Bagheri Kani on 11 November.
At every stage since Nazanin was detained, the UK Government have carefully considered and assiduously pursued the courses of action that we have assessed offer the best opportunity for resolving this case. We have not pursued any course of action that we believe would be counterproductive to the release and return home of those in incarceration.
In March 2019, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) afforded diplomatic protection to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. This formally raised it to a state-to-state issue. At that time, he also recognised that that was unlikely to yield immediate results, in part because Iran does not recognise dual national status. Unfortunately, his prediction at the time seems to have been proven right.
Since then, this Government have continued to take further action where we judge it will help to secure full and permanent release. We constantly review what other steps are possible, and we weigh up all the diplomatic and legal tools available to secure her release.
James Cleverly
I will not. A number of hon. Members have raised the issue of the IMS debt. As I have said to the House on a number of occasions, the UK Government recognise that we have a duty to legally repay this debt and we continue to explore all legal options to resolve this 40-year-old case. [Interruption.] We have always been clear.
I want to address the point that my right hon. Friend Lord Goldsmith made and the way his words have been interpreted, and I want to make the point absolutely clear. We have always been clear that we do not accept British dual nationals being used as diplomatic leverage. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey made the point with regard to the payment of the IMS debt that it is not easy, and he is right.
This Government remain committed to doing everything we can to explore all avenues to secure Nazanin’s release. We always act in what we believe to be her best interests, with the ultimate aim of securing her return home to be reunited with Richard and Gabriella.
Since the family requested assistance from my Department, officials have provided support to Nazanin’s family and are available to be contacted 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Since Nazanin’s release on furlough, we have also been able to talk directly to her through our ambassador in Tehran. We will continue to offer that support until Nazanin is returned home.
This Government and I have the utmost respect and admiration—I have said this directly to him and I am more than happy to say this publicly again— for Mr Ratcliffe’s stoicism, resolve and commitment to securing Nazanin’s release and for the support of his family. Mr Ratcliffe has met with the Foreign Secretary, with me and with senior officials. We will continue to update him, and the other families who have British dual nationals in incarceration, whenever we have information on progress or whenever we feel there is an update to do with the families in detention.
Our concern for Nazanin and her family is mirrored by our concern for all detained British nationals in Iran and their families, wherever they may be. Their welfare remains a top priority for this Government. Our ambassador in Tehran regularly lobbies on mistreatment allegations and on their health, whenever we have specific concerns or whenever a family member brings this issue to our attention. This Government will continue to lobby for the full and permanent release of those held in Iran.
On our international efforts, we will also collaborate with all relevant international partners to seek to put an end to Iran’s unacceptable practice of detaining foreign and dual nationals in an attempt to find some kind of diplomatic leverage. As part of a Canadian initiative on arbitrary detention, we are committed to enhancing international co-operation to prevent any state from arbitrarily detaining foreign nationals for coercive purposes.
Wayne David
On the debt, which is obviously crucial—many Members raised it—as the Minister accepts that it will be repaid, can he give any indication of the Government’s timetable for the repayment of that debt by whatever means?
James Cleverly
It is not possible to give the hon. Gentleman details on that. As I said, we recognise the legal duty to repay the debt, and we will explore all legal options for doing so.
I once again express my deepest sympathies for Richard and his family, and indeed to all the families of those incarcerated in Iran. He has campaigned with such tireless commitment. The Government will continue to push in all the ways we can.
Janet Daby
The Minister mentioned Anoosheh Ashoori, my constituent. I am grateful for that. However, the family are still waiting to hear whether they have received diplomatic protection from the Government. Is the Minister able to respond to that?
James Cleverly
We of course consider this issue carefully. However, I have made the point already that—I suspect in large part because Iran does not recognise dual nationality and therefore does not recognise our authority to speak on this issue—that has proven to be of limited success in the instance of Nazanin. We will continue to hold the Iranian Government to account for their treatment of the British dual nationals in incarceration, including Anoosheh Ashoori and Morad Tahbaz. I assure the House that the Government remain committed to doing whatever we can to secure their release and will continue to work and make representations at every opportunity on their behalf.
I remind all Members that it was the Iranian Government who arrested these British dual nationals. It was the Iranian Government who applied these bogus charges against them. It was the Iranian Government who hold these people in incarceration and prevent them from coming home. It is the Iranian Government who are wholly and solely responsible for the appalling circumstances that these people find themselves in. The British Government will continue to work tirelessly to secure their release and return home. I assure everyone in the House that that will remain our priority until they are released and are able to return home.
Tulip Siddiq
I was planning to thank everyone who spoke in the debate, but the list is too long, I am afraid. MPs are very lucky that we can sit here and talk and it is recorded in Hansard, but our constituents are not always so lucky, so I will read some words from Richard Ratcliffe:
“Today marks day 2,054 of Nazanin’s detention. We are approaching our 6th Christmas apart. A little girl has been without her mother for 5 and a half years. It did not have to be like this. Back in 2017—when the now Prime Minister scrambled following his false statements in Parliament that are still used to justify Nazanin’s second case—he promised to resolve the debt we owe to Iran which is the reason for Nazanin’s detention, effectively setting a price for her release. He has now been Prime Minister for two years, yet that promise is unkept—but remembered in Tehran. The Prime Minister did not visit me on hunger strike, though he did pass one morning without coming over. His government continues to put British citizens in harm’s way. Nazanin's story shames this country.”
I do not think I could have put it any better. I read Richard Ratcliffe’s words so they can be recorded in Hansard.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Access to Archives
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Before I call Chris Evans, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that there are legal proceedings this week before the information rights tribunal. I am further advised that the House’s sub judice resolution of 2001 does not apply to first-tier tribunals, so those legal proceedings are not sub judice. All hon. Members should, however, be mindful of matters that may be the subject of future legal proceedings, which may, at a later stage, become sub judice. I thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in consulting the Table Office in advance of the debate.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to archives purchased with public money.
Thank you, Ms McVey, for your chairmanship; I look forward to your stout resolution as we move through the debate. Thank you also for your statement beforehand. I have deliberated with the Table Office on this matter, and I would like to place on record my thanks for its help and support during this period.
On 2 May 2012, the Minister of State for Universities and Science in the coalition Government, the now Lord Willetts, said in a speech:
“As taxpayers put their money towards intellectual enquiry, they cannot be barred from then accessing it. They should not be kept outside with their noses pressed to the window”.
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. If money from the public purse is used for the acquisition, whether direct or through acceptance in lieu schemes, of research, records or archives, they should be accessible to the public. Put simply, those who bought it ought to have access to it. The public have a right to access materials and records that have been paid for with public funds. However, because of Government actions that bar the public from accessing certain archives, that seems not always to be the case.
Barring access to archives is both a break of the public’s trust and a threat to the integrity of our academia. It also sets a dangerous precedent in terms of accountability and transparency more widely if the Government are able to censor and restrict access to archives. I am deeply concerned about recent activities of the Cabinet Office that have blocked access to certain archives that were bought with public money, which is why I called for this debate. The resulting legal battles and the costs involved with barring access are a further misuse of taxpayers’ money, and this Government need to be held accountable for it. No Government should interfere with public access to archives that have been saved for the nation and paid for by the public.
Clearly, there are some circumstances in which that right may have to be restricted. National security interests or ensuring that general data protection regulation requirements are met are both reasonable justifications for restricting access, and I do not think that anyone would deny that. There is a reason why certain documents are kept sealed by the National Archives for 30 years. The public accept that, but it seems that this Government are using and abusing that public acceptance. They are pushing out-of-date legislation to its limits. There are a number of pieces of legislation that cover the reasons for restricting public access, and some are in dire need of an update, having been drafted long before the digital age was even thought of.
This Government are using the numerous loopholes in those pieces of legislation to restrict public access to records retrospectively. That is not fair use of public money; frankly, it is an abuse of public trust in the Government to provide open access to records that have been saved for the nation. In some cases, the abuse is even worse. In cases where the purchase was agreed or funding was obtained on the basis of public access, the retrospective closure of archival material is both a costly misuse of public money and a dangerous precedent for the Government to set. It breaks the understanding upon which the funding was obtained.
I am sure that many will be aware of the Broadlands Archives. They have gained a reasonable amount of press coverage over the last few months, and rightly so. Historian Andrew Lownie has fought legal battles for four years to try to gain access to the papers, diaries and personal correspondence of Lord and Lady Mountbatten. I have spoken to Mr Lownie over the past few months about his experiences of trying to access these archives, which were purchased on the understanding that they would be open to the public. Unfortunately, the Cabinet Office has attempted to obstruct him at every turn, resulting in four costly and unnecessary years of legal battles.
Indeed, the Cabinet Office tried to get out of responding to this very debate, suggesting that I go to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport instead. That is why I sought advice from the Table Office before going ahead with this debate. When the original suggestion did not work, the Cabinet Office also inquired about the potential withdrawal of this debate completely.
Cabinet Office Ministers are not facing their responsibilities and they are reluctant to say why it has taken so long and been so difficult for Mr Lownie to gain access to these records. The Cabinet Office needs to be held accountable for spending large sums of money on legal cases to prevent access to archival material that was bought with public funds, especially when the fundraising for the purchase emphasised that the archive would be open to all.
In 2011, these records were saved for the nation when the University of Southampton purchased the Broadland Archives. The purchase was partly funded by a grant of nearly £2 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund and it was subject to the acceptance in lieu scheme, which in this case equated to £1.6 million in tax foregone by the Exchequer. That funding was provided on the basis that the archives would be open and accessible to researchers and the public. Let me just say that again: taxpayers’ money was provided on the basis that the archives would be accessible to the public. If archives have been bought for the nation on the agreement that they will be accessible to researchers and the public, that agreement really ought to be upheld. It is not fair to the taxpayer or members of the public who wish to access these archives if access is then denied or obstructed after purchase. What is most worrying about this case is that it involves not the Government but an academic institution—an academic institution that should be promoting active research by historians.
I will not get into the case because the Information Commissioner is involved and there is an appeal; I am mindful about that when I speak about the case. However, I am talking mainly about the principle related to what is going on here, because the one thing that we have learned politically in the last couple of years is that there are politicians out there who peddle fake news—the idea that facts are fake. The only way that we can combat that—people saying that certain historical events did not happen—is through the work of our archivists and historians.
It seems to me that what is happening with the Mountbatten papers and Broadlands archives is hindering future historians in bringing out the full story of what went before. If we are to learn anything about the future, we must understand our past. I am worried that the Government are actively involved in restricting archives and that cannot go on. It sets a dangerous precedent for future Governments.
We may one day—I hope not—have a Government that want to burn our past and change it, and that will use this legislation, which I fear, to stop us having the truth and the real story of our lives in this country, and to fit their own political purposes. I hope that that never happens; I hope we never see what happened in Germany in the 1930s happen in this country. However, if we had the mechanism to block our archives retrospectively, as seems to be happening in this case, we would be setting a dangerous precedent not only for historians but for future society and future Governments.
I ask the Minister to look at the case carefully. I understand that there are legal procedures, but my extreme view is that the precedent being set is dangerous for the future. I hope he will look at the legislation and understand that when it was written we were not in a digital age. We had no concept of what was going to happen. In the last 10 years, the world has changed beyond all recognition. We have more information than we have ever had before. Government is now conducted over WhatsApp and text messages. We have an idea of what people are thinking. We live in an exciting time. It would be a shame if future historians could not access that, or did not know how important decisions were arrived at. I ask the Minister to look hard at the case and see the argument I am making that if we dangerously reduce access to archives, we will cause serious problems down the line.
The Minister without Portfolio (Nigel Adams)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on raising the issue and securing the debate—not quite as highly or hotly debated as the previous one. Nevertheless, I know how important this subject is to him as a distinguished author. I will give a broad background to the process and then talk more specifically about the case he raises.
The acceptance in lieu scheme was set up under the National Heritage Act 1980 and was further fleshed out in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. It allows taxpayers to transfer works of art and other heritage items into public ownership in lieu of capital transfer and inheritance tax. It is a good way to secure important national treasures for the nation. The scheme has acquired many important collections of artefacts for the nation, including Sir Winston Churchill’s papers, the papers of Lord and Lady Mountbatten mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, as well as—I am sure this will please him—the papers of Clement Attlee.
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport may accept heritage items that are offered, but purchases under the scheme are overseen by the commissioners of the board of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, who are advised by the AIL panel with the support of the Arts Council. As we would expect, their concern is of the value of the objects offered in lieu of tax. The panel advises on the excellence and importance of the artefacts in question, their physical condition and whether the price is fair both for the applicant and the state. The Secretary of State, again advised by the panel, allocates the items to a suitable gallery, museum, library or archive, which will then care for the material and make it accessible to the public.
The scheme has grown into a major source of new acquisitions for those organisations and means that citizens and tourists alike are able to celebrate and experience our heritage in new ways. When it comes to archives accepted through the scheme, the Cabinet Office or another relevant Department advises whether the items contain sensitive information that may need to be kept closed from the public to protect our national security, defence and relations with our international partners.
The scheme’s aim is to secure archives for the nation. It is agnostic on whether it is right that material in the archives should be open to the public at once. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the scheme is not the only route by which historic papers enter the public domain—there is the Public Records Act 1958, under which Government papers are transferred to the National Archives once they are 20 years old. Former Ministers, senior public servants or their heirs sell or gift their private papers to research institutions.
By convention, Prime Ministers may take with them copies of certain categories of documents when they leave office. The originals remain in the possession of the Cabinet Office until they are transferred to the National Archives. For example, departing Prime Ministers may take copies of letters they sign, including personal letters to the sovereign, personal telegrams and purely political papers. Obviously, they may not take copies of anything marked “top secret”. They agree not to release those papers without the approval of the Government of the day. If they sell or transfer them, they must impose that same condition on the new owners.
Ultimately, it does not matter how official information enters the public domain; Government officials review every artifact to assess the sensitivity of information. It would be remiss of any Government not to take steps to prevent the disclosure of information that could damage the national interest by revealing intelligence about national security, our relations with our international partners or exposing institutions to legal challenge. I must reassure the hon. Member for Islwyn that the Cabinet Office’s role is not to keep those records closed for ever; that is a temporary stop until the records can be released without risk. I must reinforce that point. Once the threat is deemed to be reduced, the records will be made open to the public.
The hon. Gentleman should know that there are safeguards, not least the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Under that, at the simple request of any person in any part of the world, Government Departments, university archives and the National Archives are all required to look again at records and make a decision on whether they should continue to withhold information or open it to the public. They have to be able to justify that decision, first to the Information Commissioner and ultimately to the courts.
[Mr Stewart Hosie in the Chair]
The Mountbatten papers are currently being considered by the first-tier tribunal. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is a long-running case; he referenced the individual who brought at least one case and he will be aware of the recent coverage of the case in the media. The Cabinet Office has already released some information to the requester and is seeking to withhold only a small part of that information. The hearing is currently taking place and the tribunal must be able to review the case on its merits without prejudice. As such, it would not be appropriate for me to enter into the specific details of the case today, before the tribunal has even considered it.
What I can say is that in 2011, the archive of Lord Louis and Lady Edwina Mountbatten was accepted under the AIL scheme. It was part of the Broadlands collection that he referred to, which is named after the house in which Lord and Lady Mountbatten lived in Hampshire. The collection includes papers of Lord Palmerston and the noted philanthropist the Earl of Shaftesbury, whose memorial is the statue of Eros in Piccadilly Circus.
One of the most important parts of this huge collection of papers is the Mountbatten archive. That part of the Broadlands collection consists of about quarter of a million documents and 50,000 photographs. It covers all aspects of Lord Mountbatten’s distinguished naval career: his role as Chief of Combined Operations during world war two, including material on the Dieppe raid; his role as Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia Command 1943-46; and his period as the last Viceroy of India, overseeing the transfer to independence.
Not all of those events were glorious. The Dieppe raid is generally considered a disaster, albeit one that demonstrated Britain’s continued commitment to the western front at a pivotal point in the war. Nevertheless, the papers give a fuller and more rounded assessment of Mountbatten and his contribution to our history that would simply not be possible without them. In particular, they give great insight into Mountbatten the man, his character and inner thoughts at crucial turning points in our history. Mountbatten was placed close to the centre of world events during the middle of the 20th century.
The papers also shed light on his closest relationships, including those with key figures in our national story. What makes the papers unique is the conjoined papers of his wife, Edwina, a descendant of the Earl of Shaftesbury, whose traditions of public service she continued, both as Lord Mountbatten’s partner and through her philanthropic works, most notably as a leading figure in the St John Ambulance Brigade.
In short, from an historian’s point of view, including that of the author to whom the hon. Member for Islwyn referred, these papers are priceless. That is why when the acceptance in lieu offer fell short of what the Broadlands Trust needed to secure the papers for the nation, the University of Southampton undertook fundraising on its own account to raise the extra money it needed. As the hon. Member for Islwyn mentioned, it raised an extra £2 million from the National Heritage Memorial Fund and other bodies to secure the purchase. I know the hon. Member will join me in applauding the University of Southampton for the fantastic role it played in securing the Mountbatten papers for the nation.
I know that the hon. Member believes that because the papers were purchased with public money, they should immediately be made available to the public and scholars. As I have explained, that does not necessarily follow. It is standard practice for historical papers to be checked for sensitive information. That applies equally to papers in private hands, no less than to historical papers of Government Departments transferred to the National Archives. The papers of former public servants often contain information that remains sensitive, even many years after the events that they relate to.
As it is, fewer than 200 documents in the Mountbatten papers have been redacted. In most cases, those redactions are no more than a few lines and, in many cases, just a word or two is withheld. Overall, less than a tenth of 1% of the documents in the collection have had some of their content withheld. I cannot go into detail about information that has been withheld, or why we have withheld it, but I can say we base our advice to external archives on our own experience of assessing the sensitivity of our records. We never ask archives to withhold anything we could not ourselves withhold. In this case, there is no exception.
Nor is our judgment on what should be withheld final. As I have already explained, the university archives and the majority of public institutions that hold private archives are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, in just the same way as Government Departments and the National Archives are. I can assure the hon. Member that Cabinet Office officials have consulted extensively on which materials to withhold, and on what grounds.
Again, it is not appropriate for me to go into specifics while the tribunal is still hearing evidence. The redactions in the Mountbatten papers have been made in consultation with our colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in order to safeguard national security, positive international relations and the dignity of the Crown. Officials have to answer for the decisions that they have taken to the Information Commissioner and, ultimately, the courts. Indeed, that is the course that is now being followed in the case before the tribunal, so whatever the outcome of that tribunal, I must reiterate that these records will not be closed forever. It is a temporary stop until they can be released without damaging the national interest.
To conclude, the AIL scheme is a great way to preserve the papers of important public figures for the nation. As the hon. Member for Islwyn knows, we continue to open Government historical records more often than any previous Government. As I touched on earlier, the Government must ask institutions to withhold some historical records to protect our citizens, but we remain committed to opening as much as possible as early as possible. The most important goal should be for such papers to be secured for the nation and preserved, precisely so that they will be available to historians in the future.
I thank the hon. Member again for raising this subject. I am sure that he, the historian involved, the Cabinet Office, and other colleagues will take a keen interest in how this tribunal rolls out over the coming days. Who knows—we may very well return to this Chamber soon to discuss the Mountbatten papers once again.
Chris Evans
On a point of order, Mr Hosie. I apologise to the House that I failed to declare my interests as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on archives and history, and as an author. I should have done so at the beginning of the debate.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
That is now on the record, and I am sure that everyone will be content with that.
Question put and agreed to.
Prison Officers: Pension Age
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the pension age of prison officers.
Just over two years ago, at 4.30 pm on Tuesday 8 October 2019, I stood here and made a speech in which I pleaded with the then Prisons Minister to listen to the concerns of our fantastic prison officers and let them retire at 60, in the same way that comparable frontline emergency workers in the police and fire service are allowed to do. Sadly, my pleas fell on deaf ears, and many prison officers still face the prospect of having to work until they are 68, so I make no apologies for raising the subject yet again on behalf of the many hard-working people who work in the Prison Service, particularly those based in the three prisons in my constituency: Elmley, Standford Hill and Swaleside.
The people working in our prisons do an important, difficult job. For the most part, they do so without complaint and with the utmost integrity and dedication. That dedication saw many of them going to work every single day throughout the pandemic, putting their own health at risk not only to execute their duty of care to their prisoners, but to protect the wider public. Sadly, because they work for the Cinderella emergency service, they receive few plaudits and very little thanks. Let me thank our prison staff for everything they have done during the past 18 months, often in a very difficult and dangerous environment.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and associate myself with his thanks to prison officers. Does he agree that they face a challenging job—challenging even for a young officer—and that there is an overwhelming case for looking again at the retirement age and reducing it? Does he also agree that we should also ensure that they are safe while doing their job and give them all the protection they need?
Gordon Henderson
I certainly do agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will cover all those points in my speech.
The truth is that prison officers deal every day with individuals who have been locked up to keep the rest of us and our communities safe. Too often, those men and women face violence and hostility just for doing their job. Despite that violence and hostility, which would be challenging for fit young people, these dedicated emergency workers are still being told that their retirement age will rise to 68.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a life member of the Prison Officers Association.
In his 2011 report, Lord Hutton said that firefighters and the police had a pensionable age of 60 because of the “unique nature” of their job. A lot of people in the Commons are at, around or above the age of 60. How many of them would be able to work in a prison and grapple with some of the most vicious and violent people in this country?
Gordon Henderson
The answer is not very many. I certainly could not do it. I have often been on the wings of prisons in my constituency, and I have always felt the atmosphere of hostility—not to me, but towards everybody in authority. The prospect of having to work until 68 adds to the stress of the job, which is already more stressful than most people could ever imagine. Those of us who have had an association with our prisons are lucky that we do understand.
It is often overlooked by the public and many hon. Members that the job of a prison officer is more dangerous than that of people working in other emergency services, including the police. Don’t get me wrong: I have the utmost respect for other emergency service workers and fully understand the challenges they face. The police often have to face some very violent people, but the vast majority of people with whom they come into contact are innocent members of the public, including the victims of the thugs and criminals who break the law.
On the other hand, the people with whom prison officers come into contact are almost exclusively those convicted of a crime, which means that prison officers are regularly in close proximity with challenging individuals. Those individuals may suffer from mental health issues, which is an increasing problem, or may have been regular users of drugs that have had a detrimental impact on their behaviour, including by making them more aggressive, impervious to pain or more capable of resisting attempts at restraint.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the point about drugs, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue seems to be an increasing prevalence of drugs in our prisons, which makes the job of prison staff that he has eloquently outlined even more dangerous than it was 10 or 15 years ago? The campaign to press for a lower pension age ought to be agreed to by the Government and implemented as quickly and safely as possible.
Gordon Henderson
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a secondary threat to prison officers, which I have raised in several previous debates, from the fumes of some of those drugs. Prison officers with whom I have come into contact have often gone into cells and been seriously affected by them. It is a huge problem.
In addition, we have to remember that most inmates do not wish to be in a prison environment and may be unco-operative at best or aggressive and violent at worst. That makes the expectation that prison officers should have to work until they are 68 not only completely unjust, but frankly dangerous.
As I pointed out, police officers and firefighters are permitted to retire at 60, because it is acknowledged that they do a dangerous and stressful job, as the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said. It can be physically demanding and contains significant elements of risk and volatility. Why are prison officers, who work in equally dangerous and demanding operational environments, not treated in the same way? I believe that the answer is because, as I have also mentioned, the Prison Service is the Cinderella emergency service. Prison officers are treated as second-class emergency workers. Not only are they paid less than police officers, but they are often denied access to the same level of protection as their police counterparts.
For instance, prison officers are required to carry a large amount of equipment on a daily basis, which is estimated to weigh between 2.5 kg and 3 kg. Most prison officers are forced to use only a utility belt to carry it. Requests to use utility vests similar to those worn by the police were refused on the grounds that prisoners would find them intimidating. I find that reasoning deeply insulting and illogical. Why should a prisoner feel any more intimidated by a prison officer wearing a utility vest than a member of the public holding a conversation with a police officer wearing the same style of vest?
In addition, some prison officers are being denied access to the body-worn cameras that are vital in providing evidence if assaults, including serious assaults, committed against them are ever to be prosecuted. I understand that some prisons have been told to stop investing in body-worn cameras until a new system is available in November 2022. Although the new system is said to be safer and more effective, in the interim it will potentially leave thousands of assaults unrecorded and unsupported by evidence, which in turn means that the perpetrators are less likely to be prosecuted.
It is worth mentioning that of the nearly 79,000 prisoners currently incarcerated under the Prison Service, 30% have been convicted of offences involving violence against the person, so it should come as no surprise that attacks on prison officers are increasing. According to the Office for National Statistics, there were 8,476 assaults on prison staff in the 12 months to September 2020, which is 35% of all incidents of assault that occurred on the prison estate. Some 823 of those were serious assaults. The Government’s definition of serious assault in the context of the prison estate is as follows:
“Serious assaults are those which fall into one or more of the following categories: a sexual assault; requires detention in outside hospital as an in-patient; requires medical treatment for concussion or internal injuries; or incurs any of the following injuries: a fracture, scald or burn, stabbing, crushing, extensive or multiple bruising, black eye, broken nose, lost or broken tooth, cuts requiring suturing, bites, temporary or permanent blindness.”
I have been contacted by many constituents who work in the Prison Service and have suffered such assaults in the line of duty. I have seen with my own eyes the appalling results, including broken bones, severe facial injuries and some life-changing injuries, such as an officer who had his finger bitten off.
Let us not forget that such attacks will also have a psychological impact on the victims, and in some cases an assault will stay with the officer long after the physical injuries have healed—potentially for the rest of their life. Although the number of assaults has decreased slightly over the course of the pandemic, it is worth noting that, even with inmates spending far less time out of their cells, the number is still more than double what it was six years ago.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Government are on record as saying that they do not treat prison officers the same as police officers and firefighters because prison officers do not face the same risks of injury, and that the difference is not an age thing. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that a prison officer will have to be very seriously injured, or even die, before the Government step up and treat them as equals?
Gordon Henderson
Yes, sadly I have to agree with the hon. Gentleman. The statistics do not bear out the Government’s claim that police officers suffer as many injuries as prison officers; it is simply not the case. One of the problems is that, if somebody attacks a police officer, all hell breaks loose, and every effort is made to catch the perpetrator. If a prison officer is injured, the injury is hidden under the carpet; the perpetrator gets a slap on the wrist—if they even get that. The hon. Gentleman is right. The figures that I have quoted will continue to rise; there is no doubt about it.
With that in mind, is it really fair or safe not only to expect a prison officer in their 60s to restrain violent criminals in their 20s or 30s, some of whom have very little left to lose even if they carry out the most violent acts of which they are capable, but to entrust the safety and wellbeing of other officers and prisoners to the ability of that prison officer to restrain those criminals? It is simply unacceptable. It is not an exaggeration to say that that scenario might eventually cost lives, and that surely invites the question of why prison officers are not treated in the same way as their fellow emergency workers.
It is worth reminding the House that section 8 of the Prison Act 1952 states that serving prison officers
“shall have all the powers, authority, protection and privileges of a constable.”
If that is the case, why do prison officers not have the same equipment to protect themselves as their police colleagues, and why are they not allowed to retire at 60, like their police colleagues? Unlike other emergency workers, prison officers spend their working lives effectively in prison themselves, in high-security environments and looking over their shoulders, especially when staffing levels on a landing are not as they should be because of difficulties retaining officers—often as a result of their relatively poor pay and working conditions.
Prison officers not only face physical violence but run the daily risk of other acts from inmates, such as “potting”—a disgusting and outrageous practice where urine or excrement are thrown over prison staff simply going about their duties and ensuring the orderly running of the prison. As I said, prison officers also face the risk of exposure to the fumes of powerful synthetic drugs such as spice, which can have health implications if inhaled accidentally.
In addition to all that, between April 2020 and March 2021 there were 38 instances of hostage taking across the prison estate. There were also 1,217 instances of barricades or prevention of access—whereby one or more offender denies access to all or part of a prison to those lawfully empowered to have such access by use of a physical barrier. There were 159 instances of concerted indiscipline where
“two or more prisoners act together in defiance of a lawful instruction.”
As a result of such things, officers often need to use physical intervention, or force, to overcome situations where lives may be at stake and time is likely to be of the essence. It is another example of a situation where officers in their 60s may be put at specific risk. They are targeted by troublemakers as more vulnerable targets because of their age. That is to the detriment of not only the officer’s own safety, but the safety of their colleagues and inmates. Statistics from the Ministry of Justice’s website clearly show that such incidents are far from hypothetical or atypical.
While prison officers face this relentless threat of violence and aggression, there are other pressures on them that add to their already high stress levels. For instance, prison officers often have to take on the role of informal counsellors, helping people who have perhaps never before had any meaningful structure or authority figures in their lives. Trying to help people with addictions or mental health problems, or dealing with prisoners who want to talk about traumatic incidents from their own past, are stressful situations for prison officers.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman; he is making a fantastic speech. However, he has six other colleagues who wish to speak, so if he could stop before 4.50 pm—or near that time—then we can give everybody 3 minutes to join him in support of his campaign. Is that all right?
Gordon Henderson
No problem. I have a little bit more to say. This is a very important subject, Sir Charles, and I appreciate the time, but my prison officers would expect me to give the full story—and nothing but the story.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I want the support of your colleagues to be put on the record.
Gordon Henderson
Those stress levels will, of course, frequently have an impact upon both physical and mental health. Prison officers have to face all the challenges already mentioned, while also, like all emergency workers, working shifts and facing a working day in which almost anything can happen—including potentially having to make life or death decisions under fast-moving circumstances. There is evidence that working a shift pattern can be harmful to physical and mental health, and may shorten life expectancy, which in turn erodes the ability of officers to enjoy a well-earned retirement. The longer prison officers are forced to work, the more harm it is likely to do to their health. For that reason alone, it is beyond understanding why they are currently being forced to work six years longer than a police officer or a fire fighter, and why younger prison officers face the prospect of working until they are 68.
It is possible that the Minister will remind me that police officers have to contribute 12% towards their pension, while firefighters contribute 14%. In response, I remind her that those emergency workers get paid a far higher salary than prison officers. That leads me—
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Gordon Henderson
I will carry on, because I have been told I have to shut up.
That leads me neatly to an important question: is it not possible that prison officers might be willing to make a higher pension contribution for an earlier pension date? The only way to answer that question would be for the Government to agree to hold new talks with the Prison Officers Association. Will my hon. Friend the Minister, for whom I have immense respect, agree to such a meeting?
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
May I thank the hon. Gentleman? He has secured a lot of support from colleagues for his debate, and that is to his credit. Three minutes each, please.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will try for less than that, Sir Charles. I declare an interest as another honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. As one of my witty colleagues said, the only benefit is possibly a more comfortable cell.
The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) summed up the argument precisely. I just want to remind colleagues that we had this debate some time ago with regard to firefighters and we had it with regard to police. I can remember the consensus that was built. No one wanted a firefighter of 60-odd coming through that window to carry us down a ladder. No one wanted that. Similarly, nobody wanted to see police at this age—up to 68—going out on the streets and trying to defend us when such physical assaults were occurring at the time. Nobody wanted that. To be frank, the reason why prison officers have been discriminated against is that, like their prisoners, they are locked away and we just want to look away completely from the problems that they experience. That is the reality of it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey for time and again bringing to this House the reality of what the members of the Prison Officers Association and those across the service are actually experiencing—the physical nature of the job.
Let me also remind people of this. When we had the firefighters discussion, we looked at or had actuarial work done, and one of the interesting things was the number who died soon after retirement. We could not understand that, but part of it relates to their experience in work and particularly the stress that they were under, causing cardiovascular problems.
John McDonnell
If my right hon. Friend does not mind, I just want to finish.
Exactly the same applies to prison officers. In fact, some would argue that it applies more, because the nature of the threat is continuous. The time has come to deal with this. Exactly as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey has said, the talks need to start to resolve it now, because none of us wants to put these workers through that sort of threat, suffering and stress—all of that—by forcing them to work that much longer.
In addition to that, the point that they would make—this is dedication to the job—is that they want to deliver the best service possible. When they get to a certain age, they are not able to guarantee the safety of the prisoners, because they do not have the physical resource to do it. What officers want to do is deliver a quality service. We should be supporting them in that, so the appeal is to start the talks again, start negotiating, and if more is to be paid in contributions, more should be paid in salary to compensate for that.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this really important debate. Violence in prisons, especially against workers, has increased significantly since the mass cuts to staffing and other budgets from 2013 onwards, with assaults on staff tripling to more than 10,000 a year by 2019. That level of workplace violence should be unacceptable for any employee, but there is increased danger for those over the age of 60. It simply cannot be right to expect officers in their 60s to control and restrain people who are a third their age.
Ministers have not provided any evidence to show that frontline prison officers over 60 can work safely in such a dangerous operational environment. I am aware that the report by Lord Hutton of Furness proposed that some uniformed services—as we have heard, police, firefighters and the armed forces—should be exempt from the rise in the retirement age to 68. The decision excluded prison officers from the “uniformed services” that were spared the retirement age rise. That has never been explained or justified, which has caused anger and despair among prison officers. Expecting officers to manage, care for and control violent, dangerous and difficult people until the age of 68 is quite simply unfair, unsustainable and, as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey said, dangerous.
The Prison Act 1952 gives serving prison officers
“all the powers, authority, protection and privileges”
of police officers. It is quite right that police can retire at 60, given the often violent and volatile nature of their job. Will the Minister explain why prison officers are not afforded the same protection?
Pension age should be negotiated as a stand-alone issue, but it is clear that Ministers see employee contributions as part of the discussion. But those relate directly to pay, and if pay is going to be on the table, the starting point must be the Prison Service Pay Review Body’s recommendation of a £3,000 uplift to entry-level salaries, which the Government deemed unaffordable. According to the Prison Service Pay Review Body, officers
“were said to be leaving the Service for…supermarkets; the Police; Border Force; railway companies; and other security and uniformed services”,
with one prison visited experiencing a turnover rate of almost 25%. Low pay and a high pension age are both reasons why morale is at an all-time low. The current recruitment and retention crisis shows that we need a complete pay overhaul that makes salaries competitive, attractive and fit for purpose.
Lastly, I am concerned about the growing number of female officers who fail their annual fitness test. The Prison Officers Association believes that menopause may be a factor. The situation has caused accusations of unfair and discriminatory treatment of women. Does the Minister agree that the annual prison fitness test is not fit for purpose, and will she commit to replacing it with a system that measures relative fitness, considering factors such as age and sex?
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this incredibly important debate. Hull Prison is in my constituency, and I want to thank the prison officers and other staff who serve our community there, as well as the prison governor, Shaun Mycroft.
This issue is a major concern. In my previous job as a criminal lawyer, I was instructed on numerous occasions to represent prisoners for adjudications, and I was always struck by the serious nature of the allegations against prisoners and the degree of serious harm caused to prison officers. To me, the idea of a 68-year-old man or woman wrestling with a prisoner in order to contain a situation is utterly ridiculous.
I will not speak for much longer, but I want to say two things. The Government need to get back to the table and negotiate constructively, with a view to dealing with this incredibly dangerous issue. Having served in the shadow Justice team with the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), I know how seriously she takes the issue. We regularly discussed the matter in shadow meetings while I was on the team, and I know full well that this party—the Opposition—will deal with it as soon as we get the opportunity, if the Government fail to do so.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) for securing the debate. My constituency contains three prisons: Frankland Prison, Durham Prison and Low Newton Prison. Between them, they employ hard-working and dedicated staff and hold a range of prisoners, from low-level offenders to some of the most dangerous people in the country.
The Hutton report recommended that police officers and firefighters should rightly be exempt from the rise in retirement age to 68. However, while those workers have a pension age of 60, prison officers were excluded—a clear oversight. Section 8 of the Prison Act 1952 gives prison officers the protection and privileges of police constables, so why are prison officers left with this pension injustice? It appears that the Government believe that prison officers deserve equality of powers, protections and privileges, but not of pensions.
Make no doubt about it: prison staff do a difficult and dangerous job. On a recent visit to Frankland Prison, I heard directly from staff about the risks they face. Violence in prisons, especially against staff, has increased significantly since mass cuts to staffing from 2013, with assaults on staff tripling to more than 10,000 a year by 2019. Those risks are why lowering the pension age of prison officers would mean so much to the people of Durham. My constituents have to live with the effects of this policy, whether it is a prison officer who just wants to feel secure on the landings, or a family who want a loved one in their 60s to be safe at work.
The danger of this policy was expressed perfectly by a prison officer in my constituency who asked me to put the following question to the Minister: could she picture her parents, grandparents or, indeed, herself at 68 years old trying to stop a young, fit, violent offender with a weapon? If not, why do the Government expect that of my constituents? This is the reality of life on the landings for prison officers. It is perfectly understandable that staff morale is rock bottom. Whether on pay, pensions or working conditions, the Government have consistently failed officers.
Will the Minister do the right thing and commit to a negotiation in good faith with the Prison Officers Association on the stand-alone issue of prison officer pension age, because 68 is clearly too late? Prison officers are not asking for the world. All they want is to be treated fairly, to be safe at work and to have dignity in retirement. Is that really too much to ask?
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing the debate. I would like to put on the record that I am the adviser to the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group, particularly at this time when it is important to refer to the register of interests.
Do the Government really think it is sustainable to attract new prison officer recruits by asking them to work up to 50 years of their lives in prisons as they stand? On top of the dangerous conditions, poor pay and high pension age make for an unattractive proposition for new staff looking for a solid lifetime career—the sort of staff that the Prison Service would like to attract.
This dereliction of duty by the Government as an employer, combined with low pay, is helping to drive the current staffing crisis. Since 2010, the Ministry of Justice’s figures show that over 86,000 years of prison officer experience has been lost. In my area of north Wales, over 130 band-3 officers have left HMP Berwyn since April this year, costing £13,000, on average, to recruit and train. That amounts to £1.7 million of public money lost and wasted. These key workers are moving on to better paid work that does not involve abuse and assaults on a daily basis.
We saw this year how dangerous the job can be when an officer suffered a near fatal attack at HMP Swansea, which prompted calls for an inquiry into staff safety. The most recent independent monitoring board report noted that there were 258 assaults on staff at HMP Berwyn, 22 of which were classed as serious. If I may, I will briefly put on the record something from an exit interview, to give an experience of staff. [Interruption.]
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. May I ask the right hon. Member to save that quote? We will reconvene in 20 minutes, at 5.22 pm, because I think there will be two votes. We will give you an extra 10 seconds, Liz.
Liz Saville Roberts
I would like to put on the record a quote from an exit interview at HMP Berwyn, because it illustrates some of the situations that our prison officers face. The prison officer referred to keeping serious staff assaulters in the prison:
“I have personal experience of this, a prisoner who assaulted myself and another Officer was serving for an assault on an emergency worker. He was not a ‘do not return’ on the system. Some staff are forced to move off their wing while the prisoner who has carried out the assault continues to reside on the wing. Staff are not taken into consideration.”
However, Ministers have never provided any evidence to show that frontline prison officers over the age of 60 can work safely in such dangerous working environments. A high pension age disproportionately impacts on older and female staff, who are still required to adhere to a universal fitness test. The situation is causing resentment and accusations of unfair treatment to women and of discrimination on the basis of sex. The equality analysis of the fitness test by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service shows that 100% of the people who failed both the standard and adjusted tests for the third time were female, which is a shocking statistic. It is also shocking that around 66% of officers who fail the test for the first or second time are women, given that less than 40% of the prison staff are female. Given those statistics, how can a pension age of 68 be fair to women and older workers who struggle physically to stay in the job?
I want to close by talking about pension contributions. I understand that this is among the issues that prison officers are prepared to discuss with the Minister—I wish that she were in her place, but I am sure I will have an opportunity to raise the issue with her in a moment—although it also has to be recognised that their salaries need to be far higher than they are at present, because they do not reflect the same situation as that for the police force. I am proud to support the “68 is too late” campaign.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
It is not my duty to defend colleagues, but I put on the record the fact that the Divisions went on for some time and people are stuck in the Lobby. This is an issue that I need to raise with various Committees, such as the Procedure Committee.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I know you did not mean it like that. I, too, am disappointed that the Minister is not present.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
As ever, Sir Charles, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this really—I wish I could say it was a timely debate, but it is not a timely debate, is it? It is something that we have discussed many times before. Eight years ago, when I was a flying Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), I resigned my position on this very issue, because for the life of me I could not understand why prison officers had to work until the age of 68 before they got their pension. To be honest, I still have not had any answers; we still have not had any facts, figures or answers to qualify the fact that prison officers should work until they are 68, while at the same time the police and firefighters get their pension at 60—and rightly so; I agree that they should.
Basically, we should not keep having this competition between different frontline public services, because it is not a competition. What we see is something that is terribly, terribly, terribly unfair. What is also strange is how we allow a French company that deals in hospitality to run some of the prisons in this country. However, that is a subject in itself, for another debate.
I congratulate the staff—every one of them—at HMP Northumberland. I agree that “68 is too late”; it is far too late. I have been speaking to prison officers who are frightened; I have been speaking to prison officers’ families who are frightened; I have been speaking to prisoners who are frightened; and I have been speaking to auxiliaries who are frightened. The stress levels, because of what is happening in our prisons at this moment in time, are unacceptable.
We have got to deal with this situation. I hope that the Minister agrees, if she only agrees to do one thing today, to meet the Prison Officers Association to discuss a way forward, so that pensioners in the Prison Officers Association who are working in prisons can get a decent pension at the age of 60.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Thank you very much, Mr Lavery. Mr Day has up to five minutes in which to speak.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Thank you, Sir Charles, for calling me to speak.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) for securing today’s debate and for opening it in the fashion that he did. He has my full support for the bid to return prison officers’ retirement age to 60. Indeed, it has been a very consensual debate throughout, as shown by all Members who have participated.
This is an issue that I have raised a number of times in this Parliament on behalf of my constituents, several of whom are serving prison officers. Having listened to the direct testimony from constituents about having to restrain prisoners and deal with violent incidents that happen daily across the prison network, the situation is clearly becoming more and more difficult for officers, and these physical difficulties can only get harder with age. My own visits to HMP Shotts and HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont have further convinced me that this is indeed the case.
Although I do not have the latest Scottish figures, across England and Wales, 7,612 assaults on prison staff were recorded in the 12 months to June 2021, which equates to an average of 21 assaults every day. That is a worrying number, irrespective of the age of the officers involved. Quite simply, if police officers retire at 60, it is only right that prison officers, who work on the frontline of the Prison Service, are afforded the same right by the society that they protect. In my opinion, the UK Government are letting prison officers down.
In addition to the police, the fire service and all the armed forces retire at 60, and rightly so. Prison officers ought to be able to retire then as well, because they are dealing with very dangerous and violent individuals; we have heard so much testimony on that fact today. They are not like other civil servants; their job is a dangerous one. It is and should be treated as a uniformed emergency service.
For years, the UK Government have said that there are no plans to change the retirement age for prison officers. Stonewalling on this issue does nothing for the brave men and women who are providing crucial public services that we rely on for law and order in our society to function effectively. Indeed, when I raised this issue on 17 December last year by way of a public petition from local constituents, Ministers did not even respond. I think that my constituents in particular, and our nation’s prison officers in general, deserve much better. This simply sends out a message that this Government do not care.
The Government repeatedly hide behind their decision to increase the pension age as reflecting the “generally improving life expectancy”. While it is true that people may be living longer, that does not equate to their physical and mental abilities being able to withstand the daily demands faced by prison officers. Given that lack of respect, it is little wonder that figures from the Ministry of Justice show, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), that more than 86,000 years of prison officer experience has been lost, since 2010, as experienced officers leave, no doubt in part for better working conditions and higher pay.
Budget cuts have seen the Prison Service impose an almost total recruitment freeze in recent years, so recent movement by the Chancellor for pay rises for public workers is very welcome. However, with long hours to fill, significant labour shortages and a volatile situation to police, prison staff are simply becoming burnt out. Prisons were among the employers with the most demand for staff in late October and early November, according to the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, with adverts for prison officers rising by some 30%. In conclusion, I am in little doubt that the pension age issue is a significant factor in that situation. Our prison officers simply deserve better. They should be treated equitably with police officers and allowed to retire at 60. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on this.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Ms Brown, you have six minutes, given the generosity of our SNP spokesman.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I am very grateful to our SNP colleagues, and to you, Sir Charles. It is an absolute pleasure to see you and to serve under your chairmanship. The view from the front line is absolutely clear; prison officers and governors have told me exactly the same thing: they simply do not believe that they or their colleagues can be safely running around floors in their mid-60s.
From the conversations that I have had, most of those nearing retirement age have decades of service in prisons behind them. Imagine it: decades of rigorous physical effort—bending through doorways and wrestling with violent prisoners on the floor—the repeated mental strain of conflict and constantly being in flight or fight mode at work. It must be exhausting to witness and deal with terrible circumstances, day in, day out. Worst of all is dealing with the trauma caused by brutal assaults at work.
I am sure the Minister understands the physical toll all of that takes, because we all know that being a prison officer means dealing with very damaged people. It means stepping into danger to protect colleagues or prisoners or to stop a situation that is escalating out of control. It means someone being on their feet for long hours, walking the halls, never knowing when the next crisis will emerge. The Minister will note that, thankfully, violence against prison officers fell during the pandemic. However, in the most recent stats, the rate of assaults on staff was still 177% higher than in 2010, and the level of violence is now rising fast: up 14% in the last quarter.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I have HMP Liverpool and Altcourse prison in my constituency, and I am pleased to work with the Professional Trades Union for Prison, Correctional and Secure Psychiatric Workers and prison officers. Would my hon. Friend agree with a prison officer who has written to me, saying:
“We are the police behind these walls! Yet police in the community can retire at 60”?
Is this not simply about decency and fairness for our prison officers?
Ms Brown
I certainly agree with that. It is about decency and treating people fairly, and we are simply not seeing that. Whether or not a job becomes more dangerous depends in large part on what happens with recruitment and retention, and that is affected by the Government’s decisions on pension age.
It cannot be said often enough that the safety of our prisons and prison officers depends on staff experience. It depends on the extent to which prison officers and staff have the jailcraft to maintain good relationships with prisoners, understand the real dynamics going on in a wing, and de-escalate, by using many different mechanisms, dangerous situations before they become violent and out of control. That depth of experience has been stripped away over the past 10 years as more and more long-serving officers have left the service. In prisons today, 25% or more of staff have no experience at all of the pre-pandemic regime—that is frightening. I hope the Minister will tell us what plans she has to stop the service being hollowed out even further.
We rightly have a system where even senior managers walk the wings and respond to incidents alongside colleagues. They must also maintain the ability to restrain big and dangerous adult men if the escalation fails, and be kept safe doing so. Much upward progression still requires operational fitness, and moving to a non-frontline role will often involve a demotion and pay cut. Faced with those options and with retirement still years away, many will not remain in the service and their enormously valuable experience will be lost. Does the Minister agree that it is just too difficult for a prison officer in their mid-60s to be rolling around on the floor with a violent prisoner? Does she accept that we have a retention crisis in our prisons, which affects the all-important link between retention and safer working conditions?
Over the past year, this Government have rightly called our prison officers hidden heroes, so surely it is time to put those warm words into action. We will not solve the problems in our prison system until people know that their skills and experience will be valued and developed, and their hard work rewarded. The whole of this debate has simply involved asking the Minister to negotiate in good faith and understand the true value and nature of the work, the dedication shown and the importance of retaining experienced prison staff.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson). He is a tireless advocate for the many prison officers and staff who live in his constituency, as well as those who travel to work there. Within days of me being appointed, he stopped me to kindly invite me to visit his three prisons with him and meet his constituents who work so hard there. I genuinely thank him and respect him for raising the issue again.
This is one of those debates to which I wish a little more attention was being paid. While there are clearly passionately held views across the Chamber, this has been a constructive and fair debate where the views of prison officers and staff have been put forward, and I genuinely thank hon. Members for their contributions. I hope that prison officers and staff who are watching and hon. Members will take away from this debate the fact that, although I might not be able to give some of the answers that I have understandably been urged to give, I want to engage with the Prison Officers Association and other unions, many of which I have had the pleasure of meeting already. I want to engage with them constructively on not just the very important issues of pay and pensions, but their working conditions.
Hon. Members have rightly outlined some of the horrendous circumstances that officers find themselves in when they are working to contain some of the most dangerous people in our society. I am very proud of the Ministry of Justice’s hidden heroes scheme, which has been rolled out this year and, I hope, pays tribute to those officers. My hon. Friend referred to it as the Cinderella service. As the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, because the service happens behind those very tall, thick brick walls, it sometimes feels like prison officers are separate from our wider community. I genuinely want to work with the POA, prison officers, staff and governors to shed more light on what happens behind those walls over the coming years. I think that the public would not only be interested in but proud of many examples of the work that our officers and staff do.
Sir Greg Knight
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the positive way in which she is responding to this excellent debate. Although our focus has been on the pension age, will she say a little more about the need to ensure that prison officers have the best possible protection while at work, including the use of body-worn cameras and, in certain circumstances, pepper spray?
Victoria Atkins
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making a very important point about the wider terms and conditions of employment. I do not want anyone in the Chamber or listening to the debate to leave thinking that it is somehow acceptable for prison officers to have to face in their workplace the threats, abuse and serious violence described by hon. Members. We must not as a society shrug our shoulders—I know that nobody in this room would do this—and say, “Oh well, what do you expect?” or words to that effect. We absolutely can do more to protect officers in the prison environment, and I will come on to some of the wider measures in a moment.
Liz Saville Roberts
I appreciate that in this context, when a request is made to the Minister, how the Minister responds is a matter of great sensitivity. Will she commit to meet the Prison Officers Association? It is very clear in its ask for negotiations on the pension age to be reopened. If she could commit to meet the POA to discuss the matter further, that would be very welcome.
Victoria Atkins
As I have said, I have already met the Prisoner Officers Association. I hope I was very clear when we first met that this was the beginning of a constructive and positive relationship. I will happily meet the POA, of course, and I would be delighted if my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey would join me in that meeting. I want to be frank, though. I do not want there to be any claims of inadvertently misleading people. I cannot commit today to discussions on pensions per se, but I am very happy—as I have said in the past, in fairness—to listen to the Prison Officers Association and its members. I am very keen to do so.
I am conscious of giving my hon. Friend time to respond. The retirement age for prison officers is linked to their pension arrangements. Prison officers are classified as civil servants, so are members of the civil service pension scheme. This is a defined-benefit scheme that pays a pension for life without investment uncertainties. It has one of the lowest employee contribution rates across the public sector; employers make contributions of 27% into the scheme on behalf of the employee.
When a pension age of 65 for new entrants was introduced in 2007, I am told it was done so following great consideration of the prison officer role and the demands it makes of prisoner officers and other operational roles in the civil service. I am told that the POA signed up to this scheme. Following the introduction of the alpha scheme in 2015, the normal pension age for prison officers is set at state pension age, which is between 65 and 68.
Victoria Atkins
I am conscious that I have only 4 minutes, so I will continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey has already made the point that we have tried to make change on this before. When the Prison Officers Association membership were balloted eight years ago, they did not accept the package to retire at the lower age of 65 with heavily subsidised additional contributions to the scheme. Although POA members rejected the offer, the Prison Governors Association accepted it and as a result some manager grade staff now have a lower pension age. Another offer was made in 2017, in which prison officers would have incurred no cost to access a pension at the age of 65, but again this was rejected by a union ballot union.
Victoria Atkins
I will finish, if I may, because I want to deal with the points about security and I must finish at 5.48 pm in order to give my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey time to respond.
Any lowering of the pension age for prison officers would invariably mean that their pension contributions would have to increase. Prison officers’ pension contributions are less than half those of schemes for firefighters or police officers.
Victoria Atkins
I do not want to waste time by repeating myself, but I will meet the POA. I cannot agree on the Floor of the Chamber to negotiate, but I hope that the POA, having met me, understands that I make that offer of a meeting in good faith.
I want to emphasise the point about fitness tests. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) made an interesting point about menopause in particular. Since 2001, officers have had to pass an annual fitness test that is based on the requirements of the role, and which tests strength, muscular endurance, speed and agility. No specific adjustments have been made in relation to menopause because we must apply those tests equally. However, the test is based on the specific needs of the individual. It is intended to be both age and gender neutral, and I am sure colleagues will understand that we must be careful not to discriminate on the basis of age in such circumstances. I am conscious of the huge contribution that older and more experienced officers make. They can often de-escalate situations and they can help newer recruits to learn to do the job as well as they can.
On the important issue of security, we are investing £100 million in a prison security package that includes X-ray scanners, body-worn cameras and PAVA spray, which we want to roll out alongside rigid bar handcuffs to give officers the support of those items.
I will sit down now, Sir Charles, but I look forward to discussing this further with hon. Members.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Mr Henderson, you have one minute and 45 seconds.
Gordon Henderson
While I accept that the Minister cannot accept preconditions for any meeting, I welcome the fact that she has committed to meet the Prison Officers Association to discuss it concerns. That is a step forward. She might want to discuss with the POA whether its members would prefer to no longer be classified as civil servants and be dealt with in the same way as police officers instead.
I repeat my invitation to the Minister to visit the Isle of Sheppey. I would be delighted to show her not only the prisons, but some of our lovely countryside.
Finally, I am grateful to colleagues who have bothered to turn up today to support our prison officers. I suggest gently that they might like to consider joining the prion service parliamentary scheme, of which the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and I are the co-founders.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Thank you for leading an excellent debate on behalf of your constituents, Mr Henderson.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the pension age of prison officers.
Written Statements
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Relationships with the European Union
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
My noble Friend, the Minister of State in the Cabinet Office (the Rt Hon Lord Frost CMG), made the following ministerial statement on Wednesday 10 November:
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now make a statement to update the House on various recent developments in our relationship with the European Union. The statement will also be made in the other place in due course by the Paymaster General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis).
As my Lords will know well, we have two principal agreements with the EU—the Trade and Co-operation Agreement and the Withdrawal Agreement. The first—the biggest and the broadest bilateral trade agreement in the world, freely agreed by both parties—is working well. Teething problems have largely been dealt with. Business has adjusted well to the new relationship and trade is getting back to normal. Both parties have agreed data adequacy. We are reaching complementary agreements, for example, the 17 bilateral aviation agreements that we have reached. The sub-structure of Specialised Committees is functioning: almost all the Committees have now met, the Trade Partnership Committee will meet on 16 November, and we expect a further Partnership Council in December.
There are, however, two problem areas within the TCA. The first is fisheries and the second is Union programmes, notably the Horizon science research programme.
On fisheries, since we received the necessary applications back in June, we have been engaged in technical discussions about licensing with the Commission, involving also the Governments of Guernsey and Jersey and the French Government.
As is known, we have granted 98% of applications from EU vessels to fish in UK waters, nearly 1,800 licences in total. The remaining 2% have not provided the data needed to access our six to 12 nautical mile zone.
As we have said consistently, we are ready to consider any new evidence to support the remaining licence applications. Indeed, we granted three more licences on 14 October because the Commission sent new evidence, then another on 26 October. We set out the full latest figures to Parliament on 3 November.
Licences for Jersey and Guernsey waters are assessed by the relevant authorities in Jersey and Guernsey, not the UK Government. However, we support the approach they have been taking, which has been entirely in line with the provisions of the TCA.
We have therefore been disappointed that, faced with these facts, the French Government felt it necessary to make threats which were disproportionate, unjustified, and would have been a breach of the Trade and Co-operation Agreement. I welcome France’s deferral of the implementation of these measures. I hope they will take them off the table permanently. I spoke yesterday to my friend Clément Beaune in the French Government following our talks in Paris on 4 November. We obviously have different views on the fisheries question but it is certainly our intention to keep working to get to an outcome which is fair to those who are genuinely entitled to fish in our waters.
The second difficulty I mentioned is that of the Horizon science research programme, and some other related programmes. We agreed that we would participate in this in the TCA, and we agreed to pay a contribution, which is likely to be £15 billion over seven years. The TCA is clear that the UK, and I quote, “shall” participate and the relevant Protocol, I quote again, “shall” be adopted. That is an obligation. If it were to become clear that the EU did not intend to deliver upon that obligation—and it has not done so so far—or simply to delay sine die, we would of course regard the EU as in breach of Article 710 of the TCA. We would of course put together a domestic research programme for our own scientists and universities in its place. But it is in neither ours nor the EU’s interests to get to that point, and much the best way forward is for the EU instead to finalise our participation as a matter of urgency.
My Lords, I now turn to the other agreement, the withdrawal agreement, which of course includes the Northern Ireland protocol.
We have been in discussions with the Commission on the changes needed to the protocol since we published our Command Paper in July. Our position was set out then in full and remains unchanged now.
On 13 October, the EU published four non-papers with proposals on: medicines, customs, sanitary and phytosanitary (or SPS) and the engagement of Northern Ireland stakeholders in the operation of the Protocol. Around the same time, we transmitted a new legal text to them, operationalising the proposals set out in the Command Paper in legal form.
Our immediate view of those non-papers was that while the EU’s proposals did not go as far as our Command Paper, nor cover all of the areas that we believe needed to be addressed, in particular the Protocol’s untenable governance arrangements, they were worth discussing. We were keen to see if their proposals would at least reduce trade friction in the way they claimed.
Since then we have been in intense discussions with the European Commission. I have met Vice President Šefcovic every week for the last three weeks in Brussels and London, and we will meet again on Friday as part of this week’s talks. The aim has been to assess whether it is possible to close the substantial gap between our positions and secure a consensual, negotiated resolution.
So far that has not been possible. This is, at least in part, because the Commission’s proposals would not do enough to make the Protocol sustainable for the future, or even indeed deliver what they have claimed. I have heard that view also expressed by many businesses I have spoken to, in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. If these talks do in the end fail, we will of course publish in full our assessment of the EU’s proposals and set out why they fall short of a durable settlement, but we will not do this until we have exhausted all the negotiating possibilities. For now, I wish to preserve the integrity of negotiations and to remain positive.
Accordingly, we continue to work to see whether the EU position on these issues can yet develop further, and whether it is possible to find a way to deal with the other important matters that are necessary to put the Protocol onto a sustainable footing, such as the interlinked issues of the imposition of EU law and the Court of Justice, state aid, VAT, goods standards, and so on. That work will continue in the talks underway this week.
My Lords, in my view, this process of negotiations has not reached its end. Although we have been talking for nearly four weeks now, there remain possibilities that the talks have not yet seriously examined, including many approaches that have been suggested by the UK. So there is more to do and I certainly will not give up on this process unless and until it is abundantly clear that nothing more can be done. We are certainly not at that point yet.
If, however, we do in due course reach that point, the Article 16 safeguards will be our only option. We have been abundantly clear about this since July, when we made clear that the tests for using Article 16 were already passed. Nothing that has happened since has changed that. I can of course reassure noble Lords that if Article 16 were to be used, we would set out our case with confidence and we would spell out why it was wholly consistent with our legal obligations. We would also be ready to explain that case to any interested party, not just the signatories to the Treaty, but to those with a broader interest in relations with the EU and the UK.
The EU, however, seems to be arguing something different at the moment. It seems to be claiming that it would be entirely unreasonable for the British Government, uniquely, to use these wholly legitimate safeguard provisions within the Treaty, designed precisely to deal with situations like the current one. It is also suggesting that we can only take that action at the price of massive and disproportionate retaliation.
My Lords, I gently suggest that our European friends should stay calm and keep things in proportion. They might remind themselves that no Government and no country has a greater interest in stability and security in Northern Ireland, and in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, than this Government. We are hardly likely to proceed in a way that puts all that at risk. If the EU were to choose to react in a disproportionate way, and decide to aggravate the problems in Northern Ireland rather than reduce them, that is of course a matter for it. At that point, of course, we would be entitled to come to our own judgement about how much value we could attach to their commitment to supporting the peace process and the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland, as against protecting their own interests.
My Lords, this Government will always proceed in the best interests of Northern Ireland and indeed of the whole of our country. That means, one way or another, working towards a balanced arrangement in Northern Ireland which supports the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement rather than undermining it. We would much rather others joined us on that journey rather than making it more difficult. I do hope that, in the short number of weeks before us, the Commission and the EU member states will look at what we have in common; will look at our collective strategic interests as Western countries; and help us find a stable and sustainable solution so that we can all move on. There is still a real opportunity to turn away from confrontation, to move beyond these current difficulties, and put in place a new, and better, equilibrium. I urge everyone to take that road—the road not of confrontation but of opportunity—for the sake of everyone in Northern Ireland and beyond.
[HCWS395]
UK Terrorism Threat Level
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Yesterday, 15 November, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) changed the UK national terrorism threat level from substantial to severe. This means that a terrorist attack is highly likely. The threat level was last at severe from November 2020 to February 2021.
The decision to change the UK terrorism threat level is taken by JTAC independently of Ministers. JTAC keep the threat level under constant review based on the very latest intelligence and analysis of internal and external factors which drive the threat.
The public should remain alert, but not alarmed, and report any concerns they may have to the police.
The Government, police and intelligence agencies will continue to work tirelessly to address the threat posed by terrorism in all its forms.
[HCWS394]
Small Payments Consultation
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Tom Pursglove)
Today I am launching a public consultation on proposals for a small payments scheme for individuals who lack mental capacity.
Many people think that being a parent, spouse, civil partner or sibling—more commonly referred to as being “next of kin”—means that if their loved one is unable to deal with their property and finances they will be able to step into their shoes and access their property and finances on their behalf.
However, it is a long-held legal principle that an adult must have proper legal authority to access or deal with property belonging to another adult. A common form of this legal authority is an ordinary power of attorney. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 established a new framework for the granting of legal authority in circumstances where an adult lacks mental capacity by allowing third parties to obtain legal authority through applications to the Court of Protection.
Since coming into force in 2007, the Mental Capacity Act has been a vital piece of legislation, protecting and supporting individuals lacking mental capacity and empowering families to prepare for the future, but we are aware that there is a lack of awareness of the Act, the protections it provides and the Court of Protection.
Where relatively small sums of money are involved, some families have said that the Court of Protection process is disproportionate and could have a detrimental effect in delaying, for example, the ability of a bank account holder to benefit from their funds.
This issue was initially brought to our attention by the families of children and young adults who lack the mental capacity to access their matured child trust funds when they turn 18. However, these issues will not just be faced by parents and carers of young adults, but by anyone who cares for someone who lacks mental capacity. There will be individuals who may require access to small amounts of money to support the specific needs of a person without mental capacity but may not feel a full deputyship order is appropriate for them or find the application process for a one-off order off-putting.
We believe an alternative to the Court of Protection process may be appropriate in some circumstances.
It is for this reason that the Ministry of Justice has been examining the case for a new process to enable third-party access to smaller balances without the need to obtain the form of legal authority currently required under the Mental Capacity Act.
We want any small payments scheme to be simple and quick, while also containing appropriate protections and safeguards for vulnerable individuals. It must not be seen as a replacement for obtaining the recognised legal authority as provided by either an LPA or an order of the Court of Protection, nor should it undermine the protections and support offered by the Mental Capacity Act. Rather, it should offer an interim solution while longer term arrangements are put in place where appropriate.
Creating a small payments scheme will require changes to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and supporting secondary legislation. I have launched this consultation to invite views on the feasibility and desirability of such a scheme, and the potential changes to legislation.
To develop the proposals put forward in this consultation, we have engaged stakeholders from a range of sectors, including finance, legal, charity and social care. We now want to gather evidence from a much wider group and are asking for views on the following:
the purpose of the scheme;
the value and duration of payments;
the financial products in scope;
administrative arrangements for the scheme;
current barriers in the system; and
security measures and liability.
The consultation is available in full at:
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/mental-capacity-act-small-payments-scheme and a copy has been presented to Parliament.
[HCWS393]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body: Annual Report
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, as the Lords spokesperson for Parliament’s restoration and renewal sponsor body overseeing this mighty project, alongside the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Coles and Lord Deighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, it falls to me to open this important debate. I follow in the footsteps of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, who was our spokesperson from April 2020, when the sponsor body became a statutory organisation. I pay tribute to her diligent and committed work and am delighted that she will be contributing later to this debate.
My job is to draw attention to our annual report and accounts, but I know that such reports and accounts are seldom priority reading for any of us and I am sure this debate will cover wider matters. Indeed, I intend to refer to one such issue—an urgent one—myself. I must begin by underlining the critical need for the wholesale restoration and renewal of the Houses of Parliament. Noble Lords will be aware of the scale of this task, but it bears repeating. Our 150 year-old building, a UNESCO world heritage site, is vast; it has a floorplan the size of 16 football pitches, with well over 1,000 rooms, 100 staircases and four floors on 65 different levels. Beneath us, there are three miles of passageways and 250 miles of wires and cabling. The building has 4,000 original windows, 3,800 of them in bronze, and it houses 11,000 artefacts.
Shockingly, however, this iconic Palace is falling apart faster than it can be fixed. There is a growing backlog of repairs. The cost of maintenance has doubled in three years to £127 million a year and, if left alone, will no doubt double again. The heating, drainage, gas, mechanical and electrical systems all need replacing, as does the sewerage system, which dates back to 1888. After the last war, the building was packed with harmful asbestos, and of course falling masonry is a serious hazard. After decades of patch and mend, and despite the very best efforts of our excellent in-house maintenance and repair teams, whose recent work has included installing new fire safety systems, we are doing little more than managing the continuing decline of the building.
If noble Lords have not done so, I encourage them to book a place on one of the tours of the labyrinthine basement—the sponsor body will be organising the next round of these in the new year—to see what lies beneath: over half a mile of jumbled pipes and cables, with no one knowing where in the Palace half of them end up. There are photos of all this in the modest exhibition on display today in the Royal Gallery as part of the ongoing work of consulting Members and staff. The alternative to restoration is demolition, but Parliament, recognising that this landmark building is known the world over and is much loved by the British people, has determined that it should be restored. This exercise will of absolute necessity be extremely costly, but the public—as our sponsor body board has discovered from surveys of thousands of people of all ages and in all four nations this year—have real pride in the Palace and they want it renewed.
Nevertheless, the public also want to see value for money, and this has to be at the heart of the R&R programme. While resisting the temptation to downplay and underestimate costs, and to be overoptimistic when presenting the business case, we must be ever mindful that all our spending really is essential. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, as chair of the Lords Finance Committee, for his attention to the detail of our spending, which will help to ensure we keep on the straight and narrow.
The annual report and accounts show that this has been an important period for the R&R initiative, with valuable progress in this planning phase. Substantial progress has been made with our delivery authority in considering the requirements from all sides, preparing designs, undertaking extensive surveys of the Palace, working on the decant proposals for the House of Lords and for the heritage assets, while preparing for numerous contracts which will create jobs, skills and social value throughout the UK.
Since the annual report and accounts were published, the programme’s survey work has been stepped up with 50 specialists spending nearly 5,000 hours investigating the building, examining 2,343 rooms and spaces, recording thousands of defects, including cracks in stonework and widespread water damage. Acoustic experts are considering how to improve audibility within the building and have run 300 sound tests in 80 rooms, taking 2,000 measurements. Intrusive surveys will be done over the Christmas Recess and archaeologists will be studying the ground beneath the building.
This work has already engaged people from across the country: ecological and door specialists from Manchester, window surveyors from Glasgow, architects and engineers from across London, historic surveyors and specialists from Cambridge, Suffolk, and Hampshire. When building works begin, materials will be sourced, and training, apprenticeships and skills will be supported for thousands throughout all parts of the UK.
As the annual report and accounts make clear, post Covid the programme has concentrated on those works which are essential for saving the Palace for future generations, with the emphasis on efficiency and economy, using industry-standard benchmarking methods to ensure value for money. We are learning from other major heritage programmes including the Canadian Parliament, Manchester Town Hall and King’s Cross station. The programme has adopted governance and assurance functions as recommended by the Treasury, the National Audit Office and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority.
I can testify that all this has not been easy: there are strong and conflicting views on the priorities for R&R, always with the desire for more to be achieved and less to be spent. There are myriad external interested parties, from the Westminster planning authority and English Heritage, to the Port of London Authority and the Environment Agency in respect of creating access from the riverside, to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities, which owns the QEII Centre, which we need for the Lords decant. Satisfying everyone may not be possible, but the sponsor body team, and the delivery authority that we oversee, are making steady progress toward a comprehensive plan that will be fully and realistically costed and ready for Parliament to consider in 2023.
Once the plan is agreed, building work can commence on the decanting accommodation. With a fair wind, these adaptation works will be concluded by the end of 2027 and this House would then decant to the QEII —although I rather suspect that we will not be moving before 2028.
Before we can complete our proposed plan for presentation to both Houses in 2023, a prior decision must be taken on a key question. Those representing the House of Commons have expressed a strong desire for that House to retain a continued presence in the Palace during restoration. We have commissioned work to consider the feasibility and costs of this staying-put proposition and will make a recommendation accordingly in the next few weeks.
What we know already is that a decision for the House of Commons to remain in situ, first in one Chamber and then the other, would hugely increase the costs for the taxpayer and more than double the time taken. During this extended period, the public would not be able to visit the Palace, and Parliament sees 1.25 million visitors in a normal year and 300,000 children. The other House will have to operate in the midst of the probably largest restoration project in the world, facing all the hazards of fire, asbestos, noise, dust and vibration. There will be a high additional cost of security for MPs in and around the Palace. Since the underground plumbing and power will be out of action, temporary systems and generators will be needed in the courtyards, occupying space which is also needed by the contractors.
However, it is not for me, as the Lords spokesperson, to comment on what is best for those in the House of Commons, but an insistence on retaining a continued presence within the massive building site would have significant implications for the House of Lords too. Our House has accepted the necessity—however inconvenient—to decant to other premises in order to expedite the restoration, with the assumption that the House of Commons would do the same. This means a move for us to the QEII building, which obviously has significant downsides as a working environment. If the Commons is to be accommodated in the Palace throughout the building works, the move to the QEII by your Lordships’ House would be for twice as long as originally expected, twice as long operating from a less satisfactory environment and twice as long detached from the rest of Parliament. This is bound to have wider implications for us.
Decisions will need to be made on this hugely important matter in the next few months. It is entirely understandable that those representing the Commons should want Parliament to continue to operate out of the Palace, but the implications in terms of cost, time and convenience illustrate the dilemmas and complexities of this whole gigantic project. The sponsor body is the creature of Parliament and will accept whatever decision Parliament takes, but, speaking entirely personally and for myself alone, I sincerely hope we will not be asked to proceed with the requirement of a continued presence for the other House throughout the restoration and renewal of this extraordinary building.
I conclude by thanking my fellow members of the sponsor body board, chaired so expertly by Liz Peace. I am delighted to present, on the board’s behalf, our annual report and accounts for the last year, as a record of good progress, and although I have shared my concerns on the current issue of a continued presence for the House of Commons, I congratulate the extremely professional and talented new teams serving the sponsor body and our high-powered delivery authority. I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords. I beg to move.
Lord Deighton (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to review the status of this marathon project. We are here looking at the resilience of this building, but for those of us who have been involved in this for any period of time it is testing the resilience of some of us. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I not only are members of the sponsor body but were members of its preceding body, the Joint Committee. It is worth spending a minute or two reminding ourselves of where that combined group ended up, which was with a very clear recommendation back in 2016 that the Palace of Westminster was in urgent and immediate need of restoration and renewal and that the best way to do that was quickly and with a full decant of both Houses.
I want to go back to that, not because anybody was unclear about the conclusion it reached but to share with the Committee the process we went through to get there, which was to explore every single way to try to get it done more cheaply and with far less disruption. I suppose, like every good scientific process, we unfortunately had to disprove all the other options and were left with the full decant as the only truly viable option which would produce the best value for money for the taxpayer. That recommendation was endorsed by the House of Commons in a vote in 2018, which slightly surprised me. I had thought it would probably reach a slightly more hedged recommendation; in fact, it reinforced absolutely the full decant—the “Let’s just get on with it” approach to this project.
Subsequently, we set up the sponsor body and the delivery authority, which are charged with building the capacity to carry out the project. The first, principal output from this work will be the outline business case next year, to which the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred. Until then, it seems there is a lot of sparring going on. We have resisted coming up with a budget or timetable in any detail because we have never really done the work. One of my approaches throughout this project has been to say, let us just get the work done thoroughly and then determine where we are on the three key variables which drive every project: scope, cost and schedule. The interplay between those three things is what you trade off, squeeze and prioritise to drive your eventual project.
In examining the change of approach that the House of Commons has adopted, I have asked myself what has changed. This place has not suddenly become more resilient; it is still falling down. I can think of only two things that have changed. One is that we have a different composition in the House of Commons, so maybe its current composition would vote differently from the previous one. The only other thing that has changed is that the public finances are in a much more difficult state post the Covid crisis, so our keenness to find a solution which does not suffer from what I would call sticker shock is even greater than it was before we had the stresses on public finance, which came with all the pandemic measures.
If I can step back for a little, it is always useful in these processes to remind ourselves what we broadly agree on. I think we broadly agree that the Palace of Westminster should be preserved, and that the historical approach to doing so—what we might describe as managed decline—runs out of time at some point, and that we have reached that point. Something therefore has to be done. We do not need to keep going over that argument; we are going to renew this building so that it is a good working building for Parliament going forward. Those are the arguments that I think have been settled.
There are a couple of other things where it seems strong agreement is always reached when we talk about what we should accomplish in this project. The first is improved access, both physically for those with a disability and broadly speaking for the population at large, in what I would describe as a “spirit of democracy” point of view. Finally, that the project should be carried out in a way to maximise the benefits right around the UK, by ensuring small businesses get involved and that apprenticeships are all part of it. There are many other models of big projects accomplishing that which will be quite useful for us to copy, so I am relatively confident that once we get going, we will be able to do that.
I will also say a little about the initial set-up stage of the sponsor body and, particularly, the delivery authority. It is really hard setting up a company from scratch to take on what is probably the most difficult building restoration in the history of the planet. In my experience, when we had to do that for the Olympic Games the first year or two was really difficult: you have to hire everybody while you do not really know how to work with each other. You are never quite sure whether you have the right people in the right jobs.
It was very different in the heyday of aviation, for example, when we were trying to build a third runway at Heathrow, because we had a very strong organisation at Heathrow Airport that knew how to do that sort of thing. It was a much easier process. I score us very satisfactorily on the initial set-up stages; it is going fine given the degree of challenge and given what people have had to accomplish during the Covid period.
What are the key challenges? They really all boil down to value for money or cost. What does value for money mean for this project? It is a useful concept when you have two or three different ways of getting an agreed objective accomplished if you can assess them and decide which represents best value for money, but this project is just something that we have decided to do. Personally, I do not think of value for money; I think, “What is the most efficient way to deliver your chosen scope?” Again, my experience tells me that what tends to add up to the biggest cost overruns and inefficiencies is always a lack of clarity about what you are trying to accomplish and your inability to make decisions. That drags the project out for much too long, and you are left carrying the cost of the overhead of massive project apparatus while you figure out what it was you really wanted to do.
If the question is, “How do you deliver efficiently your chosen scope?”, then your chosen scope becomes incredibly important. We do not have that much room to play with here, because virtually every initial estimate tells you that something like three-quarters of the cost is in the core engineering, which is an inescapable part of the budget. You are left with a very small part of the budget to satisfy everybody’s desires about what the end product should look like. That is like squeezing a very large person into a very tight corset. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, put it, there will always be too little money chasing too many requirements. It is okay to divide our requirements into essential and highly desirable, but one man or woman’s essential is frankly not necessarily another person’s. What things are essential or desirable in heating, cooling or security are all difficult to define in a crisp way within a scope.
I have a comment on the decant challenges. This applies particularly to the proposal that the House of Lords decants into the QEII Centre, which is the more advanced of the projects. The challenge again that we will meet there is that most of the candidates for decant locations essentially require us to set up a building that has long-term capability. In the case of the QEII, you are restoring something that is completely and utterly run down—yet we are using it only for a temporary period. Either the structure or the communication needs to be handled in a way that at least satisfactorily reflects this, or it is going to look quite expensive.
It is also an appropriate time for us in this House to all be sensitive about the world looking closely at what are deemed to be our requirements for a temporary location, particularly if it is seen to be extremely expensive. All that will come very much under scrutiny. To the extent that there are any plans to reform this House or the other, whether in size or practices, at some point those reforms should be made consistent with whatever our accommodation plan is, otherwise there is a strong risk of building something for this age that will not work for the next age.
I repeat my concern about what I described as sticker shock. Whenever the budget number is announced, no matter how low or high it is—even if it is impossibly low—it would still be greeted with shock and awe at what a ridiculously expensive project it is. There is no magic way of handling this, other than to have done your work well and made sure that it is well evidenced. You must make sure that your engagement with Parliament and the public more generally is open, clear and consistent, and when you say you are going to do something, you must actually do it and deliver. You also must demonstrate that you have worked every possible angle to reduce cost and that your definition of scope is acceptable by anybody’s standards.
I have one final warning based on my own experience. When you are confronted by this problem of a large potential budget and a complicated scope, the easy compromise is to agree in the short term an unrealistic budget. That may get you through the short term but inevitably precipitates a crisis later. The cost of that is far more serious than taking the heat of getting that scope and cost right from the very beginning and adhering to them.
Lord Carter of Coles (Lab)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, who covered many of the points so eloquently.
This is a good moment to review where we are and, more importantly, where we might go in the coming months. As the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, said, we—the noble Lord, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and me—have been involved in trying to make sense of what we do in this for some 20 years of our time. When we started, we thought that it would be difficult. That has absolutely been confirmed. It is a very difficult and complex project. As we look at it, the key thing we need to do is get decisions made at the right moment in time.
Despite Covid-19 and many impediments, there has been quite a lot of progress since the 2019 Act was passed. If you think about it, we are spending £100 million a year trying to find out what we should be doing. If you look at that, it is a complex task. Other noble Lords have referred to this being probably the largest restoration project in the world. As we go through this, we have to stick to the three questions we should always ask ourselves. First, why are we doing it? Secondly, what are we going to do? Thirdly, how are we going to do it?
The “why” is straightforward. The Palace is falling down, is dangerous and is costing a lot of money. We are spending £120 million a year more than we would normally spend to keep an ordinary building running. We are spending money looking into it. What we need is to move forward and make some decisions.
The question of what is to be done is a great deal more controversial. As the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, said, scope is always one of the most difficult issues in a major building project because if you do not get that clear and freeze it, what you get is creep; you then lose confidence because it is not nailed down. We are trying to take a 160 year-old building and turn it into a modern, publicly accessible workspace, so we have a rather irreconcilable dilemma between the needs of a heritage site and the need for a modern office block.
Above all, we want to preserve the valued traditions of both Houses. However, that means that there will be trade-offs and compromises. When these projects start, everybody gets a wish list. In the initial stages, people go around listing things then, gradually, one works one’s way through it. They might include decent working conditions, access, sustainability—the idea of this being a zero-carbon building is somewhat optimistic, I would suggest—better security, better visitor access, et cetera. All those things pose a challenge. We cannot have them all, nor to the maximum degree.
How we arrive at those choices, which we will have to make, needs to be informed by accurate costs and a clear spelling out of the interrelationship between these things. For example, if you have more of that and less of this, how will it fit together? On a simple matter, if you think about the QEII, what will the working conditions be going forward? One matter of particular concern is whether we use cellular offices or go to open plan. What are our compromises prepared to be to move this forward?
What we need is correct, accurate and, above all, validated information. As the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, noted, it is better to get it right at the beginning and fight for it there and then rather than constantly undermining the project by going back with revisions. As they say, three profit warnings do not do you any good, so we must learn how to do that.
Both those things are difficult, particularly the scope, but they can be done. The most pressing issue is how we are going to get on with it. This is the crux. If we think back, the 2019 legislation was based on the work that the Joint Committee did. It recommended a full decant and, critically, it envisaged that both Houses would be out for seven, eight, perhaps 10 years. During that time, it was the aspiration that Members in the other place would serve at least part of their time in the old Chamber or the new Chamber, so there was to be a sense of continuity. I suppose that would have been easier if the commitment to fixed-term Parliaments were more fashionable, but there we are.
Since the 2019 election, clearly there has been a change of sentiment, and the other place has been very clear that it wishes to maintain a continuing presence. To paraphrase Keynes, I suppose that, when faced with changing facts, the sponsor body has had to change its approach and get to work to determine what the cost would be. At this moment, possibly unlike others, I think that the sponsor body needs to adopt a neutral position until it sees the facts; the facts will be produced. The key is the money. At this point, we should probably draw comfort from Luke, chapter 14, verses 28 to 29:
“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you”.
I do not think we—the Government, the House authorities, the Speaker, the Lord Speaker, et cetera—are in the business of being ridiculed.
So how do we get these things right? That is how we are spending £100 million a year. People are trying to go through and not make mistakes. We have out there a glaring example of a mistake. It was estimated that it would cost £18 million to restore the Elizabeth Tower and Big Ben. It now looks like it is going to be £80 million. That is a microcosm of the challenges. What have we found? We found gas mains in the wrong place, stone that crumbles, cables in the wrong place and rotten lead. If we look at that, to start on this without drilling down and finding out what we are starting out with, not just what the scope should be based on, would be foolish. Looking at it, early in 2022, the first of the questions we need to address should be answered—that is, is it a total decant, is the other place going to remain or are the Government going to kick the can down the road? I will return to that in a moment.
As others have reminded us, this is the largest refurbishment programme in the world, and the critical thing is that it is the work of professionals. This is a job for professionals, not amateurs. We all have building experience; I think that some of the more entertaining moments in our time on this have been the eccentric suggestions that we, as a committee, have received, helpful or unhelpful. Sometimes I felt it was a bit like the suggestion that we should reduce the whole of the power system in England to steam again. We have to look forward and find a way of doing this.
Critically, what we have to do—the question is: who is the “we” in this?—is be confident in our argument and settle what we are going to do, then move on to get the OBC to understand absolutely safely what the money is, stick to it and trust our professionals. That does not mean that we should be weak on governance. We should be absolutely clear that we want to see value for money and we want to scrutinise it. Those responsible do that, as does the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. These questions are welcome because this is a unique project and we need all the insight we can get to take it forward.
Coming to where we are now, in the new year, we will see the proposals either for total decant or for continued presence—or we might see the proposal not to do anything. However, what is critical is that we reach a decision on what we are going to do, we go on and cost it, and we build a case through Parliament to take to the people. According to a recent survey—I think it was in the Daily Mail—71% of the public support the Prime Minister’s £1-trillion climate change programme, but only 16% of them would spend a fiver a week for it. Our polling suggests that there is a great public support for the rebuilding of Parliament, but we have to convince more than 16% of the population that it is worth while.
Where does responsibility for this sit? First, it sits with the sponsor body. Then it sits with the parliamentary authorities in both Houses; it sits with the Speaker and the Lord Speaker. Above all, it sits with the Government, because a Government with an 80-seat majority will determine what is going to happen. Therefore, they need to decide. Without a decision, or if the decision is to kick the can down the road, we will be faced with a catastrophe at some point. Whether it is this Government or the next Government, it will be hard to explain to the British public why this issue was not faced up to. We have the means in place to make those recommendations; I just hope that we can move on. I sometimes think that we, but particularly the Government, are all a bit like the famous dog watching television—he can see it but he does not get it. What we have to do now is get everybody to get the importance of this and move on rapidly in the new year.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I want to say at the start that I am completely supportive of both getting on with the R&R project quickly and a full decant. My noble friend Lord Best eloquently described the situation, and I wholeheartedly endorse his description of the critical need for wholesale restoration and renewal. As some of my comments will raise questions about elements of the R&R process, I wanted to make sure that that was clear at the outset. I do not want to derail the process, just ensure that it goes well. I also put on record my appreciation for the work that the noble Lords who sit on the sponsor body do— especially my noble friend Lord Best, the Lords spokesman. I suspect that this is a rather difficult and thankless task; they all deserve our gratitude.
I will restrict my comments to the information that is set out in the annual report and accounts for the year 2020-21—I am probably one of the few who has read it, as my noble friend mentioned—and a few other public announcements, tempting though it is to stray into wider matters such as the continued presence. I should stress that I am no expert in heritage restoration; I am one of the amateurs just referred to. I am just an accountant who has taken a reasonably close look at the figures.
My first comments are about value for money during this first investigatory phase—not the actual building phase, just this stage. I am afraid that, despite the various claims in the annual report about
“a rigorous approach to value for money”
and
“a relentless focus on identifying savings and efficiencies”,
I have real concerns that that is not clearly demonstrated by the figures. Let me provide some examples. Staff costs appear extremely high. The 122 employees have a total cost of £13,751,000, which is an average cost per head of £122,713. That is very high by anyone’s standards. The 36 permanently employed staff—this in that first year—cost on average £100,250 each, while the 52 seconded staff are a bit cheaper, at an average of £72,173 each. The 34 other staff, who I believe are interim, cost a staggering £187,912 each. These are extremely high numbers.
On top of the employee costs, there are huge consulting costs. Between the sponsor body and the development authority, a total of £51.6 million was paid to consultants during the year for project management fees, design services and other unspecified services provided by the integrated delivery partner. That is nearly four times the cost of the employees. There is no more detail in the report and accounts about what they were doing, or what sort of rates they are being paid, but this kind of reliance on consultants is always going to make the costs higher than they might otherwise be. There is no detail about how this is controlled. In my experience, there is a risk that excessive use of consultants can become self-fulfilling: consultants identify additional needs that they can then fill, and they become self-feeding entities. Without stringent controls on every single engagement—that is, asking, “Do we actually need to do this now, and could it be done more cheaply?”—this can quickly run out of control. These numbers raise those sorts of questions, especially as, as we shall hear later, little actual survey work was carried out during the year.
Then we have IT costs. If we include the £5.2 million of IT costs that have been capitalised, which has the net effect of reducing the headline total expenditure by £4.5 million, a total of £22.9 million has been spent on IT, comprising £7.2 million of equipment and £15 million on maintenance, development and support. That is a quite extraordinary £187,705 per employee. Some £59,000 on equipment on average has been spent for each employee.
The report and accounts point out that the IT expenditure has been benchmarked by a company called Proxima, and found to be
“in line with value for money expectations.”
I am afraid I have a rather cynical view of benchmarking. It is entirely dependent on what you benchmark against and the question you ask. If you choose the right comparators, you can justify anything. As an example, let us assume that I am looking to buy a new car. My neighbour on one side has a Ferrari, the neighbour on the other a Lamborghini, so the McLaren that I rather fancy looks like a completely reasonable choice and entirely justifiable to my wife. Actually, I just need a car to get me to the station in the morning—a second-hand VW Polo would do the job. In my experience, there is always a good enough solution at a much lower cost. I wonder whether those good-enough solutions were fully explored. We should be spending only what is essential at this stage, not what is nice to have.
So I have my concerns about how much money is being spent and whether it truly represents good value for money but, as my predecessor as chair of the Finance Committee—the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey —will I am sure confirm, one of the biggest reasons why so many of our large projects have gone over budget and over time is because we have not spent enough time and money up front on detailed intrusive surveys and preparatory work to make sure we really understand the scale and scope needed. I therefore agree wholeheartedly with those who say that we must spend enough now in this preparatory phase to ensure the success of the final project. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we must get it right in the beginning. Money properly spent now should lead to savings in the future, and as the report and accounts rightly say with respect to the current year budget:
“This investment will improve the chances of success of the Programme and create value in the future by … Understanding better the state of the building by carrying out an extensive range of surveys”.
Perhaps that is what all this money, especially the consultancy fees, has been spent on. If so, I would be generally happy. Value for money is just as much about what you spend the money on as about how much you spend. But I am afraid not. Despite the slightly misleading headline in the
“What we have delivered this year”
section of the report, which says
“Important progress on the Palace of Westminster surveys and options”
and the statement
“We have made good progress with intrusive and non-intrusive surveys”,
when you read a bit further you discover that in fact not a single intrusive survey was carried out in the year. The report states:
“The bulk of the intrusive work will take place next year”—
in other words, during this current financial year. But even that has not happened. My noble friend Lord Best has pointed out and the sponsor body has put out a press release that says that over 50 specialists have, since the start of this financial year, carried out nearly 5,000 hours of detailed surveys. That sounds good, but let us put it into context. That represents only 13 days’ work for each of those specialists. That does not include the essential intrusive surveys, which, according to the latest press release in October, will now take place over the winter and next year. That is apparently somewhat delayed compared with the claim in the report and accounts that the bulk will take place in the current year. I understand that that has been further delayed since.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I was just saying that the intrusive surveys that were supposed to take place in the current financial year have now been delayed until the next financial year. That begs the question: what we have been spending all this money on? According to the report and accounts, the current year budget totals £155.6 million. Let us assume that these 50 specialists who have been carrying out the 5,000 hours of surveys are consultants charging—let us be generous and think of a number—£300 an hour. That is just a guess; I hope it is much lower than that in reality. If so, then so far this year just £1.5 million would have been spent on surveys, which is only 1% of the total budget. I confess that I find that difficult to understand, and it really does not seem consistent with the statement I quoted about the budget being an investment in understanding better the state of the building by carrying out an extensive range of surveys.
Importantly, it appears that serious decisions may be made before the essential intrusive surveys are carried out, including the continued presence decision referred to by my noble friend Lord Best. As we know from past projects, including the Elizabeth Tower, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned, decision-making on large complex projects that is not based on full detailed surveys is a recipe for disaster. We must have a full and clear picture of the scale of the problems before we can make informed decisions around how we go ahead. It is not at all impossible to imagine a decision on continued presence being taken based on incomplete information, and it then being very difficult to row back from it if subsequent surveys throw up something that might have led to a different decision if known about up front.
As I said at the start, I remain convinced that we need to save this building and that we need to get on with it quickly, probably with a full decant. Although I have raised concerns about how well the money has been spent, I would be delighted to be proved wrong. We need to spend substantial amounts up front to ensure the success of the project. My concerns are more about how the money is being spent rather than the amount, and whether efforts are really being concentrated on the essential tasks, such as surveys. If this is not to be a disaster, our decisions must be based on full, intrusive and necessarily expensive surveys, not just on the consultation and desktop modelling that appears to be where most of the time and money has been spent until now. I will continue to want to be convinced that the phase 1 spending is only on what is essential to allow proper decisions and to make the actual restoration phase a success, and that we are not wasting any taxpayers’ money on non-essential items or unnecessary gold-plating.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I joined the sponsor board only in September this year, so I am not yet as familiar with the issues as my sponsor board colleagues around the Room. However, for the past four years I chaired the House of Lords Finance Committee, during which time the focus of our work was overseeing the delivery of 15 very large projects, ranging from Big Ben to the refurbishment of Westminster Hall. The committee scrutinised these projects on multiple occasions and in some detail, so I have a very good understanding of the challenges that carrying out work in this Palace entails.
It seems to me that three key principles weigh heavily on the board as we undertake the planning of this major project. The first is to ensure that the Palace of Westminster is preserved for future generations. This Palace is at the centre of our national and democratic heritage. The second is to achieve value for money for today’s taxpayers as we ask them to stump up the cost of these works. This, for me, is critical. The third is to be transparent about the difficult choices before us, to share as much information as possible and to draw on the experience we already have of undertaking essential renovation of this building. We know, for example, that the cost of repairing and refurbishing Big Ben has rocketed, despite the fact that that was a very well-managed project. This model cannot be repeated.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, outlined the array of problems with this building, which has never been properly maintained and has been held together with an array of sticking plasters. Another challenge is that there are no proper plans of the building, and those plans that do exist are often inaccurate or incomplete. The mechanical and electrical plant is the stuff of nightmares and would be condemned by the authorities if it were in any other building. Added to this is the catastrophic consequences were the Palace to catch fire. So restoration and renewal is essential but, however the project is executed, it will be very complex and take many years.
The sponsor board is currently working on a comprehensive plan for the work that will be required, and we are told that this has so far involved 5,000 hours of surveys. I cannot emphasise enough that this preparatory work is essential because proper, intrusive survey work is critical to the success of any project. In my experience, the key factors that result in cost and time overruns time and again are: surveys and advance investigations being too limited in scope, leading to inaccurate costings; work not being fully defined and quantified from the outset; and budgets that always hope for the best, rather than prepare for the worst. So transparency is key, and it is essential that all relevant information and lessons learned from major parliamentary projects are shared between Parliament, the sponsor board and the delivery authority. If a proper system of information sharing is not set up and strictly adhered to—I emphasise that last part—costly mistakes will be repeated and the public will be right not to forgive us.
On cost and practicalities, there is no doubt that the quickest and most cost-effective way of getting from where we are now to where we need to be is for both Houses to move out of the Palace to temporary accommodation. The sponsor board is very aware of the fact that a lot of Members have real concerns about moving out, but Members’ concerns will be as nothing compared to those of taxpayers if we proceed to make this costly restoration project slower and much more expensive than it needs to be. We must remember that we are merely custodians of this building. It is not ours. We have no divine right to occupy it during our time as legislators. Our responsibility is to protect it for those the public send here next.
As the sponsor board makes difficult decisions and puts forward its proposals to both Houses, we must have a clear eye not on what is convenient or comfortable for us now but on how our decisions will be viewed 100 years from now. I only hope that, in exercising their influence over this process, Members of both Houses will bear that in mind.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, let me begin by saying how impressed I am by the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his colleagues on the sponsor board as well as how lucky the House is to have them on the job. We thank them for their dedication; we are truly grateful for their skill and expertise.
As we all know, a British Parliament has existed on this site for more than 700 years. We all know the story of how a fire destroyed most of the buildings on this site in 1834—let that be a warning to us—but parliamentarians then did not hang around. Within two years, a new building was commissioned. A year later, new building works began. The last piece in the jigsaw—the Elizabeth Tower—was completed a little over 20 years later. The design was a sublime partnership between Sir Charles Barry and Augustus Pugin.
Pugin’s story is brilliantly captured in Rosemary Hill’s page-turner biography; I heartily recommend it to anybody who has not read it. Pugin was the son of a Huguenot asylum seeker fleeing the French Revolution. He was a passionate and precocious genius who won a competition to design the King’s furniture when he was just 16 years old. With his father, who was an architectural historian, he spent his summers touring European cities. Together, they made drawings of medieval buildings—this was before the age of photography—which were published and widely bought. Pugin was deeply hostile to the plain simplicity of the prevailing Georgian architecture of the period and proselytised for a romantic Gothic revival. He was only 24 when he and Barry won the commission with this neo-Gothic design. The Lords Chamber is his particular masterpiece, in my view.
Unsurprisingly, the enormously ambitious Westminster Palace project went over time and over budget, costing £2.166 million. However, our Victorian forebears invested not just in a forum for their day but in one of the most iconic buildings on the planet, for ever a symbol understood the world over of all that is best in this cradle of democracy. Those parliamentarians invested in the future. Some 160 years later, we are truly beholden to their vision and wisdom.
It goes without saying that the 21st-century restoration is utterly unavoidable. I think we all agree on that, given the parlous and dangerous state of the fabric. The 21st-century restoration should match the quality of the 19th-century building and carry us through the next period of our history. Of course, the works should be carried out as economically as possible, but let us not pretend that it is feasible precisely to budget the restoration of a building of this age and condition. In the 1840s, it was discovered during construction that the site of the Victoria Tower was in fact quicksand and that it would have to be supported on piles. I know from painful personal experience that, however much you assess it in advance, renovating an old building comes with a litany of unexpected and unwelcome surprises.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has been extremely busy with his calculator; I listened keenly to what he said. It had many echoes from the whole of my career. I have not been responsible for a major building project but I have been responsible for innumerable large and complex projects of various kinds. Listening to him, I thought: what is my takeaway about how you run it? The noble Lord, Lord Deighton, gave us the value of his own considerable wisdom on the subject, but what would be my experience of what is needed to run a successful project?
The first condition is that you absolutely must have around you people of real experience and expertise, who have done it before and know what it is like. The second condition is that you have to have a completely open environment because all these projects become mired in small-p politics, wherever they happen and in whatever kind of organisation. It is absolutely vital not to let small-p politics get in the way; you must have an honest and open exchange of information. If something is not right, you must find out about it straightaway. Because you have to problem-solve on the way through, you need expert and speedy problem-solving as you progress.
All these things will be necessary in this project, so yes, let us manage the project with high professionalism. I am absolutely certain that we will and that some of that high professionalism is in this Room. However, let us not pretend that we can hold those responsible to a budget calculated to three decimal places. Let us at all times remember that we are making a capital investment that will pay back over a century or more. I hope that those preparing the investment case look at the two options: what is the net present value of continuing to maintain this building over time as against the net present value of a proper and professional renovation?
Let us also renounce any thought that either the Commons or the Lords Chambers should continue to be utilised while the works are under way. That appears to be common ground today. Such a move would absolutely guarantee huge extra delay and expense, as well as complete misery for parliamentarians and builders alike. Frankly, if I am to use slightly unparliamentary language, it is a completely barmy idea. Let us rather, as parliamentarians, make the sacrifice of leaving this building together until it is fully restored. Let us remember, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, that we are but custodians of this glorious Palace at one moment in time and that, as our forefathers did, we are investing in the very future of our nation.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his introduction and his kind words to me.
It is interesting how much we can get accustomed to things over time. We turn up to this building and almost do not see the ever-encroaching scaffolding, the netting that was installed to stop masonry falling on us, the portakabins and the piles of rubbish that fill the historic courtyards on the ground floor. Despite this never-ending maintenance work, at a cost of around £2 million a week, the building is getting worse. We expect many of our staff to work in poky offices, some of which have little or no natural light, inadequate ventilation and poor temperature control. Colleagues with mobility issues struggle with stairs, steps, small lifts and heavy doors.
It is worth pausing sometimes to look at the faces of the tourists who look at our building, even in these rather difficult times. They cannot believe what they are seeing; frankly, I find it embarrassing that we have allowed the building to get into this state. On the other side of the building, hidden away, is a medieval cloister. It is reputed to have been the entrance that was used by Henry VIII when he came to the Palace. It has been virtually derelict for years. In these Houses, we make laws to protect buildings. We enforce them and expect other people to look after buildings to a standard that we ignore ourselves. This simply will not do.
I have been along to the small exhibition in the Royal Gallery. Pride of place is given to a small piece of masonry. It looks a bit theatrical, actually—it looks like a piece of polystyrene or something—but when you pick it up, then remember that it fell from the building, you realise, without being too apocalyptic, that it would have killed someone who was underneath it. I understand the justifiable concerns, particularly of Members of the House of Commons, about the expense of this project. I have much less sympathy with the unwillingness to leave this building, but it has resulted in the situation we see today.
Optimistic as I am, I really thought that we were getting somewhere when both Houses overwhelmingly supported the resolutions a couple of years ago. It was clear that there was to be a full decant of both Houses, and the sponsor body/delivery authority model was established. There was recognition that Parliament itself does not have the skills that are needed to undertake a project on this scale. This seemed a good way forward to me, so I supported it; I was pleased to join the sponsor body when it was formed. I put on the record now that every individual I worked with on the sponsor body was completely committed to this place. They brought skill and enthusiasm to their roles. We are lucky with the non-executives who have chosen to give their time to this project. They work well above their contracted hours and play a really important part.
However, personally, I am really worried about the future of this project—never more so than now. Although the sponsor body is intended to act as the client, it is of course Parliament that makes the key decisions. From the point of those resolutions to the point where the outline business case comes, it is the political leadership of Parliament, through these rather mysterious bodies called the commissions, which is calling the shots.
The noble Lord, Lord Deighton, and others have talked about the trade-offs; I think he talked about scope, schedule and cost. Of course these trade-offs are clear, but what troubles me about the model we have set up is that it enables some people to outsource those difficult decisions to the sponsor body. It has enabled them to say, “Just go away and make this happen. We don’t like these choices, so you go and sort it out”. I find this deeply troubling.
I am reassured that the Lords commission has been steadfast in its support for the approach in the resolutions, whereas the Commons has not been. I am perhaps not as warm-hearted as the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I understand that things change in the political world, but the problem with the timescales of this refurbishment is that there will always be a point when a new Parliament comes in. If we do not remain steadfast at some point, we will never progress.
At a point when the sponsor body should have been able to narrow down options for investigating and costing, it has had to add back in the option for a continued presence for the House of Commons, despite the fact that every individual and organisation that has looked at this for well over a decade has counselled against this approach on the grounds that it will cost more, take longer and introduce massive uncertainty. This was confirmed by last year’s strategic review, yet the Commons commission has added it back in. If this were to end up as the preferred choice of the Commons, I find it hard to believe that it would pass any of the value-for-money tests required by the Treasury. We would therefore have further extensive delays while that was negotiated and resolved.
The continued presence would be for the Commons only. I suspect that it neither knows nor cares about what happens to the House of Lords operationally or the impact it would have on costs. A full decant, or even a partial decant, is contingent on having somewhere to go. In the case of the Commons it is Richmond House, which is not under the control of the sponsor body; it is under the remit of the House of Commons. Could the noble Lord, Lord Best, say what progress the Commons is making on a possible decant to Richmond House? My fear is that, if it does not get on with that, we will end up defaulting to a continued presence because it has nowhere else to go. The nightmare scenario is that picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which is that, if the faults with the building turn out to be far worse than we think, the Commons would be committed to a continued presence in a building that is in a far more parlous state than we could have thought.
As well as these well-documented potential additional costs and risks with a continued presence, there are significant potential security risks with having hundreds of contractors working in the building while MPs are sitting. I understand that this is a sensitive area, but I hope that ways can be found to make the full security implications of this option crystal clear to those making the decisions.
The decant option for the Lords is, as we have heard, the Queen Elizabeth II Centre. It is owned by the Government, but it is a building that itself needs some considerable work on its core services, as well as to bring it up to the requirements for temporary accommodation for the Lords. A consequence of the Commons pushing on with a continued presence will be to lengthen considerably the amount of time the Lords will need to be in the QEII. I would have thought that would further add to the costs, because a building that is converted to a standard for five years might have to be rather differently dealt with if we are going to be in it for 10 or 15. Despite issues around commercial sensitivity, these costs again must be spelled out.
I am worried that the very real consensus that emerged across both Houses and all parties when we voted on the resolutions is now in danger of collapse under all sorts of competing pressures. I may be wrong, but I find it hard to believe that this House would ultimately vote for an option that it knows would cost considerably more, add risk to the project, and consign it to an extended period in temporary accommodation.
As we have heard, this will be the biggest restoration project undertaken anywhere in the world. It is an opportunity to preserve this building for the generations to come and to create a better working environment for the staff. I absolutely understand that the people who are answerable directly to an electorate in a way that we are not have real reservations about trying to make a case for spending money on this building, but the problem is that they are not doing it for themselves or for us. We could limp on somehow or other, but the building cannot limp on indefinitely. We owe it to future generations of parliamentarians, staff and the public to get on and deal with this now.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their very rich contributions to this debate. I am very grateful to all of them for their support for the line that the sponsor body is taking. I also thank Clementine Brown, the parliamentary liaison officer, who is behind me as I play this part of make-believe Minister just for the day. I have discovered how difficult it is to be the Minister in this position, when excellent notes are passed to you but you do not have time to absorb them and set them out in an orderly fashion. I am grateful for that presence behind me.
What a lot of wisdom has been added to this debate, beginning with the noble Lord, Lord Deighton. It is great to have somebody who really knows how it is to set up a new delivery authority and be part of that whole process, having done this with the 2012 Olympics. Having that knowledgeable insider among us has shown us the way. We have also engaged people from that Olympics experience in our staffing team. It is powerful stuff to have this group around us. We have recruited some very high-powered people to the team.
The noble Lord, Lord Deighton, made a whole series of important points. I shall not go over them all again, but I picked out one or two that particularly impressed me. He was glad to be able to say that, in our phasing-in of this whole system of a sponsor body and a delivery authority, in this first period, he felt that we had been getting it right. He was pleased to give the whole sponsor body a commendation. If he says that we are on the right track, that is powerful stuff.
The noble Lord pointed out that three-quarters of the cost of what is coming down the track and will have to be paid for will be just to satisfy the core engineering, and only a quarter of the funding that we will need will be available to satisfy all the other demands and the things that people want. We need to be realistic up front, recognising how much of this is the fundamental stuff at the back of it. The noble Lord made the point that whatever number we finally announce as the likely cost of the project, there will be shock and awe, and probably horror, around the country. We will need to weather a storm. It will cost an awful lot of money. We will have to be determined, grit our teeth, recognise that and stand up for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, who has also been on the case from the very beginning, recognised that some compromises will have to be made. He pointed out the interrelationships of the different demands. We need accurate, up-to-the-minute, accessible and useful information —that is the key. We are spending £100 million a year getting there, but it is really important not to make the same kind of mistakes, as the noble Lord pointed out, as have been made in estimating the costs in relation to the Elizabeth Tower—Big Ben and all that—running from a hoped-for £18 million at the beginning to something nearer £80 million today. We need to get things right at the beginning. He also made the point that the public at large need to understand the importance of the whole project. We need to work on that; maybe quoting St Luke somewhere along the way would help.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, was kind enough to say that he is utterly supportive of the project and wants to see it go ahead, but he raised a number of points. We are really grateful for having the noble Lord performing this role and keeping us on our mettle. That will be a continuing process that I think we will appreciate a lot. We need it to help us see the wood for the trees and understand what is going on.
The noble Lord’s comments added up to telling us not to gold-plate the whole operation and to spend only what really needs to be spent. That is a message that we have to keep before us all the time. He was worried about the high staff costs. They have been high, but that is because of having to recruit, train and retrain a highly skilled programme group with the necessary leadership, engineering skills and infrastructure knowledge and understanding. These are expensive people who have had to be drawn in and attracted by the proposition. It does not look the most secure job to take and costs have been high. Of necessity, we have also had to use a lot of consultants. Their costs, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, pointed out, can be four times as much as having your own staff, but that is changing: we are now getting to the position of being able to replace the external consultancies with an in-house team, which will make a significant difference.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, was worried about the surveys that have not been undertaken. I mentioned the ones that have, and there has been a lot of work on doing these, but the intrusive surveys where you really poke about have had to be put back. This is partly due to Covid, because it has been more difficult to get access to all the places, and partly because the Palace authorities want us to keep clear when the House is sitting and things are operational. Perhaps parliamentarians are going to have to get used to the fact that having people poking around, inconvenient as it is, is a necessity. Those intrusive surveys are now all organised and contracts for them are being placed as we speak. They will be very detailed and will, I fear, discover all kinds of other things that we did not know about: that is bound to happen and will be the next stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, as a newcomer, brought fresh insights with experience of handling other major projects elsewhere. That is going to be important and helpful to us. She emphasised that we need to be very transparent and share the details of all the costs. This is a common undertaking. We do not want to worry that there are commercial decisions going on here: we have to be outgoing in showing what things really cost. We must avoid the hazard of underestimating costs to try to keep them down as low as possible: that, of course, will create critical problems later on.
The noble Lord, Lord Birt, brought us the lessons of history and the details of Pugin’s extraordinary life, reminding us that the first time around, it went, I think, four times over cost and took three times as long to complete. It is so important to get the facts and figures and make the assessments in advance, so we are not caught out in those kinds of ways. He also made the important point that we need to recognise what we are saving each year in the capitalised costs that we put in. The net present value of maintaining the Palace will soon be £200 million a year: what is it worth spending to save £200 million a year? That is a lot of money just to break even, so there is that decision to take.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, brought up the rear, and we are all grateful to her for her initial input, so important in the formation of this great enterprise. She was the first, I think, to mention falling masonry— I am not sure that I had added that to my list. It is a pretty important issue. We have to fix everything: all the stonework has to be inspected. There are hairline cracks and potential dangers there. The place is increasingly unsafe but her call to us was to remain steadfast. She expressed particular concern about the “continued presence” concept, which I think was reflected by almost everyone who spoke. We need to be mindful that the decision is only weeks away. It will have to be taken within a very short space of time and will affect everything that happens thereafter. It is a crucial moment.
I will go away further resolved to get on with the job. Everyone who spoke was supportive of us not delaying things, of making progress and of not accepting the difficulties that are out there, and that support is very much appreciated. The Committee has reinforced our eagerness to get on with the job and, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Birt, to remember that what we are doing is investing in the very future of our nation.
House of Lords
Channel 4: Consultation
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many responses they received to their consultation on A potential change of ownership of Channel 4 Television Corporation, which closed on 14 September.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter, and at her request, I beg to move the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the consultation on the potential change in ownership of Channel 4 received around 60,000 responses. We are grateful for the public’s engagement on this matter and, indeed, for the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, and her Liberal Democrat colleagues. We are now working hard to analyse every response and to ensure that all evidence feeds into any final decision.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, is there not a lot of evidence that the overwhelming response, particularly from those with individual or organisational experience of the collective creative industries, was to warn against the privatisation of Channel 4? Will the Minister publish the advice that the department has received and, once he has analysed and considered it, would it not be a good idea to drop this piece of ideological vandalism?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is rather getting ahead of the process. No decision has been taken yet and we are carefully processing all the responses received. The consultation ran from 6 July to 14 September; as I said, it received around 60,000 responses, including more than 100 from the industry, all of which will be carefully analysed before any decisions are made.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, independent analysis from Ernst & Young, which explored potential business models and remits for a privatised Channel 4, suggested that any change could significantly reduce the organisation’s economic contribution in the supply chain, with the effects felt disproportionately north of the M25. The Government claim they want to level up, but time and again their action has knocked down the UK’s nations and regions, rather than giving them a boost. Can the Minister tell us what in-house analysis the Government are undertaking, and whether the Government’s findings are consistent with Ernst & Young’s? Will they publish their analysis along with the results of the consultation?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord mentions the work done by Ernst & Young. Our analysts, UKGI, and our corporate finance advisers, JP Morgan, take a different view and that is why we are taking a range of views on the suggestions. On the work that Channel 4 does across the United Kingdom, I say simply that Channel 4’s strengths in this regard are to be celebrated and maintained, and that is not at odds with private investment; in fact, Channel 4’s access to networks outside London and its ability to speak to such a diverse range of audiences are likely to be attractive assets to nurture and develop for any potential buyer, if that is the route we go down.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, there is a meme of the moment that Channel 4 and, indeed, the BBC are being marginalised by the awesome economic power of Netflix. Does the Minister accept that Netflix’s programme proposition, though wholly admirable, bears no relationship whatever to the breadth of the public service propositions offered by both Channel 4 and the BBC? Moreover, will the Minister remind his department that in terms of hours of consumption per adult per week, far from being marginalised, the BBC enjoys six times the consumption of Netflix, and that Channel 4 is level-pegging?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord speaks with great experience of the sector. I am about the same age as Channel 4; the environment in which it was launched in 1982 was very different from the environment now. The Government should never stand still when it comes to ensuring the success of our public service broadcasters and the growth of competitors such as Netflix, as the noble Lord mentioned. That is why it is appropriate to reflect on Channel 4’s future and consider whether the current model gives it the best chance to succeed in the new environment as we seek to ensure that it is set up for success for decades to come.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
I declare an interest as a board member of Creative Scotland. For producers in Scotland, Channel 4 is a key buyer. Regional independent production companies have said very clearly that they believe that the privatisation of Channel 4 will cause great harm to their businesses. What evidence does the Minister have that they are wrong and what reassurances can he give them for their future?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Channel 4’s access to networks outside London and its work with independent producers right across the UK are likely to be attractive assets that any potential buyer would nurture and develop. Whatever decision we take, however, will not compromise the Government’s commitment to the independent production industry. That is why we have consulted on these issues and are working through the responses to inform our decision-making.
Lord Fowler (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and indeed to everyone else who has spoken so far. I gently point out that privatisation has often been to the benefit of the public and the organisations being privatised. In the first privatisations of the Thatcher years, in which I was involved, we achieved the first employee buyout of a major company and the ability of British companies, who were starved of cash, to get the resources necessary to expand. Surely the important challenge for the Government is for them to give an assurance that their priority is to develop Channel 4 rather than simply to raise money.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that important point. Channel 4 is uniquely constrained in its ability to meet the challenges facing the media landscape today; in comparison with other public service broadcasters, its access to capital is highly constrained. That is why we are looking at reform to protect Channel 4’s long-term future, so that it can continue to be a valued public service broadcaster, serving audiences with great public service content for years to come.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
Does the Minister agree that Channel 4 is not just any old media company but rather a sui generis British institution established by Act of Parliament—a hub at the centre of networks reaching out deep into broadcasting and the digital world, the creative industries, skills, minorities, the regions, entrepreneurialism and culture?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, and Channel 4’s inherent characteristics are also its strengths: its ability to make distinctive content, its work with independent producers and, in turn, its ability to attract diverse audiences. However, those strengths are not at odds with private ownership. They are things that we think would be attractive to potential buyers, things that they would seek to nurture and strengthen. We do not think that there is a false choice between public service remit and privatisation. As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, pointed out, it is possible to have both.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Channel 4 is not everybody’s cup of tea, including, I suspect, many in the Conservative Party. Some also say that there is an overabundance of reality TV programmes. There were major faults with the subtitles, which are essential to certain viewers. However, does the Minister agree that the flagship Channel 4 news output, which goes out at 7 pm and is repeated at 8 pm, headed up by the veteran anchorman Jon Snow, the inimitable Matt Frei, the incomparable Krishnan Guru-Murthy and the professional Cathy Newman, is essential viewing for those who do not get home in time for the 6 o’clock news? Can the Minister use his undoubted influence to ensure that this essential contribution to cutting-edge journalism continues?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Government want Channel 4 to succeed as a public service broadcaster, and all PSBs are required to broadcast news. They are regulated under Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code, which ensures that all the news is reported with due impartiality and accuracy. That would not change under private ownership. Our consultation document sets out our current view that Channel 4’s existing obligations relating to news and current affairs provision should be broadly retained in any potential reform.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, for the sake of perhaps as little as £500 million, after you have netted off adviser and transaction fees, does the Minister feel that the risk/reward equation stacks up for privatising when we take into account the potential disruption to thousands of jobs, not just within Channel 4 but across hundreds of small independent producers spread across the country? I repeat the question: levelling up or levelling down?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Again, the noble Lord slightly pre-empts our response to the consultation. A range of views have been made in it and that is why we held it. As I said previously, whatever decision we take will not compromise the Government’s commitment to the independent production sector and to the wider creative economy. I am glad to say that the independent production sector is now flourishing and increasingly less reliant on income from UK public service broadcasters, but these are the very issues that we are taking into account as we look at the consultation and the responses that we received.
Covid-19: UK Arrivals
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why international students and others who have been fully vaccinated and are not required to self-isolate on arrival in the United Kingdom subsequently have to self-isolate if a close contact contracts COVID-19; and what plans they have to change this policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
Our current system for validating the vaccination status of close contacts relies on checking against records in the NHS national immunisation management system. We do not have access to equivalent records for those vaccinated overseas. We recognise the pressing need to resolve this issue as soon as possible and are urgently exploring a number of different options to extend the existing exemptions to contacts who have been vaccinated overseas. I hope to be in a position very shortly to brief the House on a proposed solution.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I will welcome that solution when it comes. The Minister talks of urgency but we have been waiting since the beginning of September for a resolution to a problem that I believe is rather small but which clearly disadvantages international students. To me, it feels slightly xenophobic and as though to date the Government have been intransigent. I know that Public Health England agrees that the policy is not logical in any sense or form, so why do international students have to self-isolate for 10 days when our own students from the UK do not? This disadvantages the international students and puts people off coming to this country. Also, how can international students who have had non-MHRA-approved vaccines be immunised in the UK in order to get a Covid pass, should that be necessary in the not too distant future, as it is in some other parts of the UK?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As someone whose family comes from outside the EU, who has taught in universities and who recognises the great asset that there is and the great advantages that there are in being open to the world, and global Britain, I share the noble Baroness’s frustration. Yes, we have left the EU, which is very much a project of white privilege, and moved to a more global outlook. It is really important that we now focus on the world generally. The issue is quite technical at the moment. One of the things needed for the test and trace system to work is that you need access to the underlying data and verification. We are looking at a number of different options for how to achieve that.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
The noble Lord, Lord Flight, is not present so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
As the Minister has said, our universities have long been a welcoming and inspiring academic hub for international students but stories such as the ones that we have heard—along with, I am afraid, the attack on freedom of speech at the LSE and the shameful treatment of Professor Stock, which we will come to shortly—added to Covid and online teaching, to say nothing of the Brexit fallout, which means that EU schools can no longer use group passports, all question our ability to attract youngsters from across the globe. What are the Government doing to re-establish our reputation in this sector?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point about us being a global hub and welcoming the whole world. For centuries the UK has been open to a number of different nationalities from across the world. Indeed, my own family came to the UK in the Windrush generation. I have always been clear that we should be a global Britain, not just focused on one small part of the world.
I want to take the opportunity to answer the question that I forgot to answer about international students. Anyone in England is eligible for the vaccine if they fall within the current eligibility criteria, and international students are encouraged to register with a GP.
On free speech, it is critical that our universities remain places where you can have free expression without fear. The essence of free speech is being able to tolerate views that you may not agree with but it is important that they are expressed. Universities should remain hubs of free speech.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interests. Given that this is not really a public health problem in its scale, but it is a bar to the recruitment of international students and their integration once they are here, may I urge the Minister—even if he cannot find a quick solution to the NHS app—to put out some information on how Covid passes can be obtained and to make sure that all universities and students have access to that information as soon as possible?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Last night I took part in a debate that involved the issue of the Covid pass, particularly with the boosters. I was frustrated because I thought I had a date I could announce. That was pulled at the last moment, but we are very close to a solution. The technical point on test and trace is that, at the moment, it is unable to validate the vaccination status of people whose vaccines are not registered on the database. We are looking at whether that can be done on trust, or whether that would open a loophole for getting around the system. I have been assured when pushing the NHS on this that it is looking at an answer.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
The Minister must accept that this a very confusing area for everybody. Perhaps he would like to clarify the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday on what impact tougher overseas travel rules and self-isolation for those without a jab might have. He mentioned those yesterday in the press conference. I think they are linked to the Question my noble friend asked. It is very important that the NHS app shows the booster as soon as possible, because it is going to cause a lot of trouble for Christmas travel.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I welcome questions from noble Lords, particularly on getting the booster on the app, because when I am talking to officials in the department and the NHS it shows how important it is that we do this as quickly as possible. One of the tasks is to be accountable and to push the NHS and others to make sure that we are doing this. Sadly, when I ask what the problem is on test and trace, I am told that it is unable to validate the vaccination status of people whose vaccines are not recorded on a national immunisation management system. I have asked about passenger locator forms and whether we could use a similar technology. At the moment that is done on trust, but you face a very high fine if you are misleading; maybe that could be a solution. I assure noble Lords that I really am pushing.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interests. I have printed off the advice given by my university, Cambridge, to international students and what it means to be fully vaccinated. To come into the country, if they are fully vaccinated, they do not have to isolate when they arrive, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, pointed out. If the system can understand when they arrive in the country that they are fully vaccinated, why can the NHS app not understand that they are fully vaccinated when they get pinged by test and trace?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I share the frustration of the noble Baroness and others. This is not great for our international, global outlook, or for the fact that we want to attract the best students from around the world, not just Europe. We are a global country and we have to address this. I am pushing the NHS on this because it is really important. The problem is the national immunisation management system, to use the technical term, and the inability to validate the data of overseas visitors.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I can sense the Minister’s frustration in this, but we have been aware of it for some time; this should have been sorted out a long time ago, yet here we are now in November. Does the Minister accept that all departments must play their part in achieving the Government’s aim of increasing the number of international students? Will he assure us that his department will be both flexible and creative—with the emphasis on “creative”—in resolving this and other similar problems that may arise?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I assure the noble Baroness that when I was pressing this issue yesterday with officials in preparation for this Question, I stressed the importance of flexibility and creativity. We need to think outside the box on many issues. One issue we are looking at is: if passenger locator forms can do this, why can the NHS Test and Trace system not? I am told that is because it is based on self-certification. I am pushing the NHS to address and analyse the different options as soon as possible. It is really important we send a message to the rest of the world that we are open to the brightest and the best from across the world.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, in Queen’s University Belfast, the current position is determined by the Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland and is based on your vaccination status and age, rather than on whether you have home or overseas status. Would the Minister engage with the devolved Administrations, particularly the Northern Ireland Executive, who seem to have best practice in relation to this issue?
Lord Kamall (Con)
One of the advantages of having devolved Administrations and different practices is that we can learn from best practice, so I will take the noble Baroness’s advice.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the noble Lord believe the rules and regulations regarding the Covid-19 pandemic are clear, consistent and easy to understand?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. It depends on who you ask.
Professor Kathleen Stock: Resignation
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to ask the Office for Students to undertake an investigation into the circumstances of the resignation of Professor Kathleen Stock from her post at the University of Sussex.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Office for Students informed the Department for Education on 11 November that it has decided to open an investigation into whether the University of Sussex has met its obligations on academic freedom and freedom of speech. No academic should have to fear for their personal safety, particularly as a consequence of expressing lawful views. This incident demonstrates why this Government are pressing ahead with legislation to promote and defend freedom of speech on campuses.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome that Answer. Professor Stock, a distinguished academic at Sussex University, essentially said that your biological sex cannot be changed by feelings of identity. For quite unexceptional remarks, she has been vilified by colleagues, abused by students, unsupported by her union and let down by the university, which was far too late to defend her. Academics in many other universities—women in particular—are facing similar abuse for gender-critical views. The noble Baroness referred to the forthcoming legislation, but does she agree that, however much legislation you have, you need confidence in our universities to show some strength in defending their academics? What are the Government going to do about that?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to condemn the abuse many academics—women in particular—have suffered recently. The Government are clear that any restriction of lawful speech and academic freedom goes against the fundamental principles of English higher education. The new Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will strengthen existing freedom of speech duties and address the gaps that exist within the current law, including the lack of a clear enforcement mechanism. That will bring with it clear consequences for providers and student unions that breach these new duties.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister rightly says this is a sensitive area, but no academic should be worried about expressing an opinion, and no academic should be fearful for their own well-being. The Government say they will introduce new legislation, but how will that affect this issue if the university fails to act in a proper way?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Universities have long-standing duties in relation to freedom of speech in law. They have to balance those with their duties under the Equality Act and other bits of legislation. They will be expected to take all reasonable, practicable steps to address any constraints on freedom of speech and uphold it in future.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
What happened to Professor Kathleen Stock was deeply dismaying and worrying for our society. Universities should be both a safeguard and a focus of rational debate about contentious issues. I was glad to hear from the Minister that the Office for Students is setting up an inquiry. As this is not just a local difficulty but something fundamental to the future of a civilised society, will she bring its recommendations to Parliament so that we can see that there will be adequate action in strengthening the role of academics in free debate?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble and right reverend Lord makes a good point. I am sure that he will have seen the letter written by over 200 academics that was published in the Sunday Times last month, making the point that, actually, junior academics face the most chilling impacts of what is going on. Of course, he will know that the Office for Students is independent, and how it presents its report is therefore up to it, but I would be happy to answer questions on it, should they arise.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, much of the public discourse around Kathleen Stock’s case has focused on free speech and her right to express her views. Not enough has been said about what those views are. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, Professor Stock believes that biological sex is binary and immutable—a view that is held by most people in this country—and that it is not transphobic to hold these views and at the same time to believe that we must protect women’s rights. Can my noble friend confirm that holding these beliefs is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and that it is unlawful for employers, service providers and co-workers to discriminate against or harass their employees or customers simply for holding or expressing such beliefs?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I point my noble friend towards the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling that held that “gender-critical” beliefs that do not seek to “destroy the rights” of trans people can be protected beliefs under the Equality Act. Individuals should not face unlawful discrimination in the workplace for expressing those beliefs within the law.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, universities should be places where unpopular views can be aired, discussed and challenged. As we have heard, academic freedom is of paramount importance. However, does the Minister agree that staff and students should be able to pursue their studies in an atmosphere that is safe and inclusive? There should be no place for the intemperate and divisive language that seems to have been a feature on both sides in this particular sad case.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: there should be a safe and inclusive environment. The right to freedom of speech is not absolute and certainly does not include the right to incite violence or terrorism or to harass others.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, that is indeed right, but I associate myself very closely with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington. Could the Secretary of State write to all vice-chancellors, pointing out that we are on the slippery road to Salem and McCarthy if we continue with this practice on campuses?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am happy to share my noble friend’s suggestion with the Secretary of State, but I know that he would also support the independence and autonomy of universities. The Government are seeking to make crystal clear their duties in relation to freedom of speech and how those can be enforced.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, one of the most disturbing aspects of what Professor Stock has had to endure is that some academic staff seem to have encouraged students to behave in a way that is quite contrary to the purpose of being at university. If higher education stops being a place for open debate and discussion, we as a nation really do have problems. But, sadly, Professor Stock is not the only person in this position, and, while I welcome the report that she has announced on the University of Sussex, noble Lords and the Minister will be aware of named people who are going through this as well. What can she do now to make sure that, in several weeks’ time, we are not having a debate about further resignations from university posts?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The Government have been crystal clear about their view on these issues. We have heard today about the investigation on the part of the Office for Students, which will, I am sure, cause other university leaders to reflect. Perhaps your Lordships might consider the number of amendments to the Bill, when it comes to your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Bill that the Minister has just mentioned proposes to appoint a new free speech director in the Office for Students. For someone to be able to intervene in sensitive areas, it is really important that they have the trust of all sides across the sector. The Minister will be aware that, when the chair was appointed, this triggered the intervention of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which ended up appointing someone who still takes the government whip in this House, which has caused some concern. Can she reassure the House that, when they come to appoint a new chief executive and this director, the appointment process will be fair and transparent?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that the appointment, like all processes, will follow the public appointments procedures, which I hope will have the confidence of every Member of the House.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the investigation announced today, but I want to make a couple of simple points. All trans people—and that includes trans women—deserve to be treated with respect, dignity and humanity in their workplace or any other environment. Therefore, does the Minister agree with the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal that protection of a gender-critical belief as a philosophical belief does not mean that it is acceptable to misgender trans people, that trans people have lost their Equality Act protections against discrimination and harassment or that employers and service providers will no longer be able to provide a safe environment for trans people, including trans women?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I say to the noble Lord that reassurances to trans people were clear in the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling, which I referred to in my response to my noble friend Lady Jenkin. It held that gender-critical beliefs that do not seek to destroy the rights of trans people can be protected under the Equality Act.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
NHS England: Waiting Lists
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce NHS England waiting lists.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising this. It is a top priority for the Government and for the NHS. This year we are providing a record amount of funding to the NHS, with an extra £34 billion. This includes £2 billion this year plus £8 billion over the next three years to step up activity to tackle long waiting lists for elective care and to transform elective services. This funding could deliver around 9 million more checks, scans and procedures.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I figured that that was what he would say. It is not about how much the Government intend to put in but how it is being spent. That is particularly important in the absence of any workforce strategy. If the billions were directed immediately at investing in social care and care workers, for example, both domiciliary and care homes, how many beds does the Minister believe could be freed up in the next eight weeks? What effect would that have on the throughput for elective surgery and accident and emergency departments?
Lord Kamall (Con)
When you look at the data on the waiting lists, what is interesting is that 75% of patients on the list do not require surgical treatment. Most actually require diagnostics. Some 80% of patients requiring surgical treatment could be treated without an overnight stay in hospital, and 20% of patients are waiting for either ophthalmology or orthopaedic services. That shows where you can target the spending to cut the waiting lists.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, returning to my noble friend Lady Thornton’s point about social care workers, does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that social care workers are leaving the sector to work in hospitality, supermarkets and other sectors because they are paid more and are given bonuses to attract them? Will the Government now agree—bearing in mind the contribution that more care workers can make to easing the pressures on the NHS this winter—to pay a bonus to care workers over the winter months to show we prize their skills and dedication, as recommended by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and NHS Providers, and to relieve pressures on the NHS?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me as much time as her question took to answer. The Government have announced at least £500 million over three years to support the workforce and fund various initiatives. One thing that we are looking at in the Health and Care Bill is how we make sure that workers in the social care sector, whether in private or state-funded institutions, make sure that they earn enough. We have also launched a Made with Care programme, a publicity campaign to encourage people into the social care sector. It involves many existing social care workers, who talk about what a rewarding job it is and how they can make a difference in people’s lives.
The Lord Bishop of Ely
My Lords, can the Minister confirm the number of children waiting for treatment for speech and language and for physiotherapy and occupational therapy assessments after their initial assessment? Those treatments are vital for supporting educational development of children as we recover from the pandemic. Are those figures included in the published waiting list figures—and, if not, why not?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. Unfortunately, I do not have the statistics with me, but I shall write to him.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether he is encouraging the use of best practice, including new technology, between hospital trusts? There are still many examples where there is good practice out there, but it is not being spread.
On a point that we touched on last night, in relation to A&E, we have a serious problem. Paramedics are waiting for significant periods of time, which means that they are not getting out on the road to treat other patients. We really need to bring in some drastic measures to ensure that we create a new system. We cannot leave it for months and months because, if we do, the impact will mean that people’s lives will be lost. What measures does the Minister have in mind to deal with this problem?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord made a very perceptive intervention last night when asking us to think outside the box, and I gave an example of someone who I know suffers from asthma and forgot to take his blue inhaler with him to another city. His wife went to a number of places to try to get an inhaler from the pharmacy and from A&E, while telling him to stay in his hotel room. In the end, he was told that the only way to get an inhaler was to call the ambulance. We need to think outside the box and be more creative about when those situations occur—it is not necessarily political, but we need to be creative.
On technology, one of my jobs is Minister for Technology, Innovation and Life Sciences. I have been forceful, when talking to the NHS, that we have to digitise and share data. I accept that there are some concerns over sharing data, but the way to have an NHS that is fit for purpose is to make sure that we digitise and share data.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I refer to my work with dispensing doctors. Will my noble friend join me in paying tribute to all the workforce of the NHS? Does he recognise that they are absolutely exhausted? The BMA has forecast that thousands of doctors will leave the profession in the next few years. Will the Government undertake to reinstate the commitment to have 6,000 more doctors by 2024?
Lord Kamall (Con)
In our conversations with the NHS, we are talking about the workforce plan. We are looking at ways to improve the way in which the NHS and social care plan for their workforce. We have committed to continuing to reflect very carefully on points made by noble Lords across the House. honourable Members in the House of Commons and many stakeholders. It is important that we value the workforce of doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers whom people often forget about. We should also value all those other workers who have provided services to us during lockdown, such as delivery drivers, postal workers, Amazon workers et cetera. They have all played a vital role, and we should not forget the role of civil society organisations.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, we all recognise that the NHS and care staff are working under intense pressure. To attract additional members is vital. With that in mind, will the Government be more welcoming to individuals from overseas by easing further their entry conditions for those willing to come and work in the NHS and care sector, including a reasonable period of time for them to remain here?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Immigrants have always played a vital role in our country. If we cast our minds back to the post-war period, there were massive shortages in healthcare but also other public services. Indeed, my own father came over to work on the railways and buses. It shows the importance of immigration and immigrants to this country from across the world.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the fundamental problem confronting the NHS is a lack of spare capacity and resilience? This means that the NHS is continuously running at unsustainably hot levels of bed occupancy. The UK has 2.7 hospital beds per 1,000 population compared to an EU average of 5.2, and significantly fewer doctors and nurses. What plans do the Government have to urgently increase capacity and deal with workforce shortages, which cannot all come from training new people from scratch, given the timescales involved?
Lord Kamall (Con)
If the noble Baroness looks at the statistics relating to the waiting lists, she will see that 75% of patients do not actually require surgical treatment: they require diagnostics. We have announced an investment in community diagnostic centres— sometimes in shopping centres or sports grounds—to make diagnostics more accessible to the public, rather than having to go to a healthcare setting. Moreover, 80% of patients requiring surgical treatments can be treated without an overnight stay in hospital, so they can do that as day patients. This is where we want to focus, along with making sure that we tackle all the waiting lists right across the board.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
Nine in 10 NHS chief executives, directors and chairs reported last week that the present system and organisation have become unsustainable. We can only guess at the pain and anxiety of those waiting to be treated. That is really what this is all about. My noble friend Lord Young talked about ambulances and the time wasted waiting outside hospitals. What plan do the Government have to boost the NHS workforce and ensure that there are sufficient numbers to help bring the waiting lists down?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government are in conversations with the NHS about the workforce plan and the winter plan. We are looking at ways to tackle the waiting list in more creative ways. As I said, 80% of patients requiring surgical treatments can be treated without an overnight stay in hospital. If we take medical care out to the community, especially at diagnostic centres, we can cut down a lot of the waiting list, but also in terms of the Health and Social Care Bill. One of the reasons is that the NHS has been asking the Government for changes to make sure that it meets the challenges of the future.
Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill
Tuesday 16th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021 View all Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 66-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (16 Nov 2021)
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I know it will be a disappointment to my noble friend Lady Altmann and others in this House that the Commons has disagreed with Lords Amendments 1 and 2. I ask that this House does not insist on its amendment for two reasons.
First, we have discussed at length the reason why the Government do not believe that they should set a precedent for uprating benefits or pensions using a methodology that is not robust and for which there is no consensus. That would be the position with an adjusted measure of earnings growth, which is why the Government decided to apply a double lock, underpinned by the established consumer prices index, which is published by the ONS. This approach was also recommended by the Social Market Foundation.
Secondly, Royal Assent is needed by 22 November 2021. This will allow the Secretary of State to conduct her statutory review using the new powers in time for the DWP to meet its hard deadline of 26 November for reprogramming its computer systems. This will ensure that the new rates of benefits and pensions are payable from April 2022. While I welcome the intentions behind the amendment, we cannot accept it. That is why I ask that the House does not insist on Amendments 1 or 2. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a matter of real regret that the Commons has not accepted the amendments to the Bill proposed by your Lordships’ House, but it is worth taking this opportunity to stress that not only have the Government broken a freely given promise to the electorate but, as has been clearly explained, they have done so totally unnecessarily. They could have lessened, if not avoided, the concern caused by breaking their promise by taking this opportunity to reaffirm clearly their commitment to the earnings element of the triple lock. It baffles me why they failed to do so.
I will not repeat all the arguments, despite the importance of the issue, but I have one more question for the Minister. The problem is that the Government are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, they say they remain committed to all three elements of the triple lock—prices as measured by the CPI, average earnings and the 2.5% minimum. They want us to believe that this was an exceptional case that justified special rules being applied, and that they still deserve the electoral kudos that comes from standing by their promises. On the other hand, they have in practice made it clear that there are exceptional circumstances in which they can break the commitment.
We know they are prepared to break the triple lock, but we do not know under what conditions. We know what they were in this case; Ministers in this House and in the Commons have explained on several occasions the special circumstances which they believe applied. The noble Baroness the Minister said at Second Reading that
“the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic have caused distortions in the labour market, which have been reflected over two years in highly atypical trends in earnings growth.”—[Official Report, 13/10/21; col. 1847.]
We know the Government believe that highly atypical trends in earnings growth are sufficient justification for breaking the earnings link. We do not know how atypical earnings growth needs to be in future before they decide again to break the link. Can the Minister tell us more about what counts as atypical earnings growth? How atypical does it need to be to justify breaking the promise?
However, it is not just earnings growth that might be considered atypical. What counts as atypical growth in prices? This is not a hypothetical issue. Most of us here have become familiar with what many in this House might regard as consistently low rates of inflation, but who knows what is to come, with the unwinding of quantitative easing and other pressures on the economy? How do we know that the Government, when faced with a significantly higher rate of inflation than we have experienced in the last 25 years, will not decide that this too is atypical?
As I say, this is not hypothetical. Based on the OBR forecast for the Budget, it looks likely that the state pension increase in April 2023, which we will discuss next November, will be based on price increases rather than earnings or the fixed 2.5%. The latest Bank of England forecast, released earlier this month, suggests that next September—the relevant month for measuring the CPI—the increase will nudge 5%. Perhaps it will be higher, given this Government’s lack of economic competence. We do not know. In any event, an increase of this order would be significantly higher than the experience of the last few years. Earlier this year, not long ago, the September 2022 increase was expected to be only around 2%—it could be argued that this is more typical. I do not want to put ideas in the Minister’s mind, but I must ask how atypical the CPI increase next September has to be before it too will be considered atypical enough for the Government to decide that it justifies breaking the Conservative Party’s manifesto commitment to the triple lock?
The Minister needs to tell us that this year’s broken promise is truly a one-off and that the commitment to the CPI-linked increase will be adhered to, whatever next September’s increase. If we are not given such a commitment—which I suspect we will not be—then, in truth, we must conclude that we have a return to decisions about increases in the state pension being made on an ad hoc annual basis. History tells us that the inevitable outcome is that pensioners will suffer.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the outcome of the vote in the Commons is immensely disappointing. It condemns millions of retirees to a life of poverty and misery. At around 25% of average earnings, the UK state pension is already the worst in the industrialised world. It is the main or only source of income for the majority of retirees, and their lives will be even harder, especially those of women. Women never got pension equality: the retirement age was increased but their pension was never equalised with that of men. Thousands will die this winter because people will have to make the harsh choice between eating and heating, and the first statistics will be emerging fairly soon. Our retirees are being hammered from every corner, whether it is on pensions or winter fuel payments, which are unchanged since 2011, or the Christmas bonus, which is unchanged since 1972, or the loss of the free TV licence for the over-75s.
In 2021-22, the state pension increased by 2.5%, and the rate of inflation, we are now told, turned out to be 3.1%—that is the way it works. For 2023, the Government are proposing an increase in the state pension of 3.1%, and the rate of inflation is, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton said, likely to be 5%. That means that there is a real erosion of the purchasing power of the state pension. Pensioners are not catching up; they are being left even further behind, and all that awaits them is a life of poverty.
The Government’s arguments about affordability were comprehensively debunked in this House. It was shown that there are numerous ways—not least a £37 billion surplus in the national insurance account. A Government which claimed not to be able to afford the triple lock two weeks ago gave away £54 billion in tax cuts, including a £4 billion tax cut to the banks, which are already awash with money and do not know what to do with the £895 billion of quantitative easing either.
The Government have really skewed priorities. Personally, I would have liked to see the state pension increase by 8.3%, which would have enabled a bit of a catch-up, but I was happy to support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. Yesterday, the Minister in the other place said—and the noble Baroness the Minister referred to this again—that the figure for wage growth is not “robust”. The Minister has never told us what the characteristics of a robust statistic are. In social sciences, there is no such thing which cannot be refuted. What characteristics does she assign to the word “robust”? Is the government data on unemployment robust? Is it not contestable? Is the government data on inflation not contestable? Are the Government’s claims about levelling up not contestable? I do not know what she means by that.
We were told that wage growth data were not really reliable. Lots of resources are available to the ONS and it has come up with a number between 3.6% and 5%. It says that underlying wage growth is in that range. Why is that number not considered to be robust? If the ONS is deemed to be incapable of producing a robust number for wages, why should we trust any of its other numbers which inform government policies?
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief and speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Janke, our Front-Bench spokesman on this Bill. Unfortunately, she cannot be here today.
First, I will say that we are glad that the Government have reconfirmed their commitment to the triple lock in the long term throughout all these discussions. We are disappointed that the Commons have rejected these amendments. The Government had an excellent opportunity to maintain their manifesto commitment while taking into account the special circumstances of the pandemic. We will not be pursuing this amendment —we accept that this has to be accepted—but we thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for the work that she has done.
We are concerned that pensioners will not be protected from the effects of the economic pressures now coming from inflation. The Governor of the Bank of England is very uneasy about the situation and we want to know whether the Government are prepared to keep an open mind and look particularly at the case of the poorest pensioners as time goes on in the next few months, when these pressures will come to a head. More importantly, we are extremely supportive of the maintenance of the triple lock in the longer term.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we have been hearing lately that the House of Lords is a rather useless body and that the other place is better—but twice recently your Lordships’ House has asserted that it cares more for the people than the other place. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, stood up for the right of the citizen to clean water, asserting that against what the Commons had said. We also stood up for the triple lock and had that rejected.
I have a very simple suggestion for the Government. Since they have no intention of helping pensioners, why can they not be honest and say that the triple lock simply means that we will raise pensions by the lowest number of the three which are here, unless it is higher than the Bank of England target of 2% inflation? The 2% inflation that the Bank of England has chosen as its target is not a statistic. It is not disputable because they have made it up. It will always stay at 2%. So the Government could at least guarantee to be honest; they could just give 2% and run away. They should not give false promises and then not fulfil them.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly follow the introduction made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I will not address the issue—I did that the last time we sat—but there is a wonderful clarity about this issue. With ignorant journalists in the media calling for the abolition of your Lordships’ House, this issue shows, above all, that we will always be an irritant to the Government, whatever party is in power. It was the same when I was over there; the House is an irritant. The clarity with this issue, particularly for those of us who do the Peers in Schools programme, it that it is a wonderful example that is very easy to explain of the fact that the Commons always has the last word.
So, whatever the arguments about the composition and powers of this place—and the idea that we can legislate at will, which we cannot—this example gives wonderful clarity on the fact that the Commons always has the last word. Our job is to ask MPs to think again and again, and sometimes again—I have known examples of three occasions. But the fact of the matter, which the elected Chamber cannot run away from, however it is dressed up, is that the Commons has the last word—and I think that is to your Lordships’ advantage for the way we operate.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing her Motion and all noble Lords who have spoken. I am going to get a new T-shirt for Christmas: “Proud to Be an Irritant”. Perhaps they should start selling them in the House of Lords gift shop; they might sell quite well. A nice note for the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
I must say that I am disappointed. The House voted by a healthy majority for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, which would have kept the link between pensions and earnings. It is worth noting that the amendment won support from around the House, whereas the Government were able to persuade only 13 Members who do not take the government Whip to vote against. The reason is clear: the case was unpersuasive.
The Government came to power on the back of a manifesto commitment to the triple lock, which we also supported at the last election, as did the Liberal Democrats and other major parties. The Government now want to ditch it for next year on the grounds that the rise in earnings over the year to last summer was artificially high as a result of Covid. We accept that earnings growth was distorted as a result of the pandemic, but that does not mean that the Government should just ditch their promises. They could and should have found a way to maintain the earnings link in pensions while adjusting for the Covid effect.
I will not relitigate this but, during the passage of the Bill, we looked at lots of ways we could do it, and lots of constructive suggestions emerged, and in the end the House coalesced around a very reasonable amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, with cross-party support, which simply said that the Government should use a figure for earnings chosen
“in the light of reasonable adjustments to take account of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic based on the Office for National Statistics reported earnings figure.”
It could not have been more reasonable, and it left the Government considerable latitude: we were not telling the other place what to do but simply giving them a chance to think again.
But the Government flat out rejected that. The Pensions Minister in the other place did comment on the merits of the amendment, but he caricatured it by saying that it
“invites the Secretary of State to measure earnings as if they were not actually growing by 8.3%.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/11/21; col. 359.]
So are the Government now saying that earnings growth actually is 8.3%? If so, why are they ditching the triple lock? And if it is not 8.3%, why did they not take the chance this House afforded them to look at alternatives?
The Minister again mentioned time pressure, so I put to her again a question I put at an earlier stage in the Bill. She told noble Lords there were two reasons why it was so time-critical. The first was that the computers have to be changed by a date—I think it was 26 November, or another date late this month that was the last date that computers could be changed to adjust the rates for next year. She also said that the House will then have to approve the uprating order, which we normally do in the spring. So what happens if they change the computers deep in the bowels of DWP and then the House chooses to reject the uprating order? What happens then?
While we are here, by refusing to look again, we are left with a Bill which will uprate pensions by the CPI inflation rate prevailing last September. Meanwhile, we all know that the costs of things that all pensioners use—food and fuel, for example—are spiralling up. Pensioner poverty is on the rise again. The last Labour Government managed to bring it way down, but it started to rise again in 2012. It is now on the rise and it will get worse yet.
I am sorry to say that this short Bill is a mistake. It steps away from the earnings link and, in walking away from their manifesto commitment for the third time, the Government are breaking trust with the electorate. Why are they so determined to do it? Ministers tell us that it is for one year only. Great, but I worry that their refusal to be creative in finding a way to deal with the fallout from the pandemic raises fears that they really are planning to walk away from this longer term.
My noble friend Lord Rooker is, as always, right. We have done what we can. We have asked the elected House to think again. The Government whipped their people to say that they did not want to do so. I think they are wrong. Pensioners will pay the price for this and they will not likely forget this breach of trust. I hope the Government think it was worth it.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. To answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about the Government believing in the long-term earnings link, yes, this Bill is for one year only. After that, it will revert to the current legislation, and state pensions will increase at least in line with earnings. The triple lock will be applied in the usual way for the remainder of the Parliament. We believe that 8.3% is atypical growth, just as we considered minus 1% to be atypical last year, which is why we increased state pensions by 2.5% instead.
Again, to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, inflation is forecast to be higher than 3.1%. Do pensioners not need a higher increase? The uprating order for all benefits will take effect from April 2022 and, last year, pensioners saw an increase of 2.5% when CPI for the uprating review period was 0.5%. Average actual CPI over the first six months of this financial year was lower, at 2.4% at the Budget, and the OBR forecast that CPI would average 4.1% for the second six months of this financial year. If this turns out to be the case in September, the CPI figure will be a good reflection of average inflation over whole of 2021 and 2022.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said that the state pension is the lowest in the developed world and is still below the 1979 level relative to average earnings. This comparison is misleading. There are many factors to take into account: tax systems, healthcare systems, pension ages, cost of living, access to occupational pensions and the availability of other social security benefits, as well as the provision of services and goods free to pensioners or at a concessionary rate. The Government provide considerable additional support for pensioners. People over state pension age are entitled to free winter fuel payments worth £2 billion every year, free eyesight tests, NHS prescriptions worth around £900 million every year, and free bus passes worth £1 billion every year. In addition, the BBC has made provisions so that those aged 75 or over who are in receipt of pension credit are eligible for free TV licences.
To answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, if there is no Royal Assent, we need to use the current legislation at 8.3%.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B:
“That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.”
I beg to move.
Dormant Assets Bill [HL]
Tuesday 16th November 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Dormant Assets Act 2022 View all Dormant Assets Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 37-I Marshalled list for Report - (12 Nov 2021)
16:28 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 195 - Amendment 1 agreed.
17:49 - Division on Amendment 6 - Ayes: 164 / Noes: 192 - Amendment 6 disagreed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
“(1A) An order under this section may enable the creation of funds (to be known as “community wealth funds”) that may make grants and other payments to support the provision of social infrastructure to further the wellbeing of communities suffering from high levels of deprivation and low levels of social infrastructure.(1B) The Secretary of State may—(a) by order create one or more community wealth funds for a temporary period of at least 10 years, and(b) at the end of that period review the efficacy of the community wealth funds with a view to creating community wealth funds on a permanent basis.(1C) In subsection (1A), “social infrastructure” means—(a) buildings or other assets owned or managed by organisations located in communities for the purposes of local residents’ meeting, socialising, accessing educational resources, or conducting other activities to improve their wellbeing, or(b) organisations, whether incorporated or unincorporated, existing for the purposes set out in paragraph (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) or (j) of section 3(1) of the Charities Act 2011.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable orders under Clause 29 to create community wealth funds as a means of tackling deprivation and building social infrastructure in left-behind communities. It would mandate the Secretary of State to establish and review the effectiveness of one or more pilot schemes which would run over at least ten years.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his first outing on the Bill. Before I get into the body of the amendment, I perhaps ought to declare an interest. I am a member of several boards of charities, and I work for a charity, so I am rather hoping that if we endorse this amendment, those charities might at some point benefit from it. Nevertheless, it is an interest to be declared.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for leading this debate in Committee, when he proposed what could be called a “full-fat” version of the community wealth fund initiative. In Committee, the Government argued that the local trust proposals, while interesting, are not sufficiently worked through, meaning that the DCMS is not in a position to make community wealth funds a beneficiary of dormant asset funds at this time.
Amendment 1 suggests a reasonable compromise and, on that basis, we hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment. The text would give the Government the power to establish a long-term pilot scheme, enabling small-scale investments to be made in local communities that have been left behind in recent years and for data relating to the social impact of those investments to be gathered and analysed. The amendment does not compel Her Majesty’s Government to act but gives them the tools needed to commission such a pilot.
The Government’s stated commitment to the levelling- up agenda was very much at the centre of their 2019 election campaign and, of course, they have subsequently argued strongly in favour of levelling up in many different guises and fora—we await anxiously, with bated breath and much anticipation, the arrival of the White Paper—so it is hard to see any reason why DCMS should exclude itself from that policy process and not agree to trial the community wealth fund approach.
My argument is simply that the proposal could act as a powerful tool in boosting deprived areas, putting small sums of money in communities’ hands so that they can invest in the facilities or services that would have the most local benefit—perhaps subsidising a community hall, running adult learning classes, supporting skills and training hubs and sports facilities, and improving digital connectivity. I am sure we could all come up with a long list of things that could directly benefit communities that have been left behind and require levelling up.
The other feature of this, which speaks to the amendment, is that much of the Government’s funding so far announced for levelling-up programmes is focused from the centre, so it is directed and targeted at precise places and communities. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but the community wealth fund, if trialled and piloted in the right way, would put money directly into the hands of communities that sought to benefit from them, giving a sort of bottom-up approach, one that I believe most of us in your Lordships’ House would very much support.
Stakeholders have repeatedly signalled a willingness to discuss their idea with Ministers. They are realistic about the difficulties of adopting community wealth funds with a big bang approach, which in my view adds rather more weight to the proposal for a time-limited series of low-risk pilots.
Finally, while I am on this point, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, who has made a valedictory speech and is therefore unable to contribute to this debate. We are grateful for her support for this amendment, as well as that of the Bishops at large. We are also, of course, very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for her wider service in your Lordships’ House.
We see this amendment as part of a levelling-up agenda and a way of empowering communities, as well as an opportunity to trial new and innovative ways of funding communities. We believe that this has a low-risk attached to it but would nevertheless give a boost, and some inspiration and thinking, to local wealth creation. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am very delighted to support this amendment. My colleagues and I are great believers in empowering local communities. Indeed, in my years as an MP, I saw a number of local initiatives, driven by local people and community groups, that did some extremely good work but could not cope with the mutual demands of both providing their services and fundraising, so they were unable to grow to that kind of sustainable point that was so important in the community. It seems to me that the community wealth fund gives opportunities to those new initiatives, driven by local people, targeted very much towards the members of the local community and very much reflecting local need. It would seem ideal to do this under the structure of the dormant assets programme.
I have two other reasons for feeling that this is important. Later on Report, we will address issues of oversight over the kind of programmes funded through dormant assets. But it seems to me that there is no way that that issue can be addressed without recognising that the kind of resources for the detailed scrutiny and monitoring of programmes is in short supply. It seems to me that, when you have small local programmes, a well-structured community wealth fund arrangement can put in place that administrative oversight and make sure that, locally, the funds are well spent, provide value for money and are properly targeted. So that level of administration in fact makes up for a much broader weakness, frankly, within the overall dormant assets structure.
I am also very pleased to look at a pilot approach—this will be a case of trialling, reshaping and refining—because I am concerned to make sure that the money derived from the dormant asset funds is used in addition to the kind of services that ought to be provided, whether by central or local government. It will be really important for an entity such as the community wealth fund to work in tandem with local authorities but not substituting for what they can or should be doing. We do not want duplication of administration or service, and we certainly do not want to give central government an opportunity to further reduce the resources that it provides to local authorities on the grounds that the dormant asset fund and various charitable and local civic societies will do the work in its place and not require the normal support and resource that ought to be provided.
It therefore seems to me that this is very much a win-win approach, and I hope that the Government will take it on board. The Bill is an opportunity to expand what has been a very successful programme in significant additional directions, and this is certainly one of them.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have my name down in support of this amendment, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, builds on one that we debated in Committee. As is always the case, when you come back to the subject, there is a risk of a great deal of repetition, and I do not wish to try the patience of the House with a long exposé. During the debate in Committee, the Minister’s predecessor, my noble friend Lady Barran, raised some significant concerns that the Government had about the way that this might operate. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has very neatly—if I may say so without sounding patronising—answered some of the points made then.
I will repeat, in four sentences, four reasons why I am attracted to community wealth funds. They are very local and can reflect the often highly idiosyncratic needs of a particular local community. They can provide a physical space—a building—as a focus for presenting and answering those particular needs. Thirdly, they can provide an element of professional help, without which a purely voluntary organisation can struggle. Fourthly—this is most important—they can provide the long-term capital needed to answer and build answers to the very deep-seated challenges that many of these communities face.
However, as my noble friend Lady Barran said—I am sure that if I could see my noble friend’s speaking note I would see that he will repeat it in a minute—this is a new approach and the Community Wealth Fund Alliance is setting out, brimming with confidence, hope and optimism. I certainly wish it well, but there will be difficult days ahead with hard decisions about structure, approach, governance and impact. The noble Baroness will probably raise that last issue in her speech in a minute. It is dangerous if you accept too rigid an approach in primary legislation; if it subsequently turns out to be less than ideal, you are stuck with it. So there is an element of “Be careful what you wish for”.
Then there is the issue of consultation. I think many of us would say that this was a case of putting the cart before the horse. Normally you have a consultation, get the results, draft the legislation and then discuss it in the light of what has been discovered, but that has not happened here and we are going at it the other way around. Whether we like it or not, that is where we are. So I can see why, unsatisfactory though that approach is, in the circumstances, the Government cannot and do not want to pre-empt the results of that consultation.
Conversely, primary legislation, like buses, does not come along very often; the next Bill might be in another five or 10 years—it is 15 years since the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and I discussed the Charities Act, and we have had probably had one since—but we need to send a signal of our support for community wealth funds. How do we balance those issues? I suggested that if the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, replaced “must” in his original drafting with “may”, that might provide an answer that would not force the Government, the Secretary of State and my noble friend on the Front Bench to set up a community wealth fund but would provide them with an option to do so in light of the consultation when they had the full outcome available. Since the noble Lord was kind enough to make that change, I am delighted to support his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ely
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is correct that my friend the Bishop of Newcastle has made her valedictory speech, but I have been permitted to speak on her behalf. Noble Lords may have noticed a certain discrepancy in height and volume between me and the Bishop of Newcastle but she is living proof that stature has nothing to do with size. I applaud my friend for her significant role as a Lord Spiritual and a community leader in Newcastle; the city has honoured her with the freedom of the city in recognition of her work.
In support of the amendment, we would like to say that the creation of community wealth funds, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has said, will strengthen community life in left-behind communities, including many in the diocese of Newcastle. Levelling-up investment, while welcome, has been largely about hard infrastructure but we want to see more investment in social infrastructure so that our communities can flourish. It is precisely that social infrastructure which could be provided by the community wealth funds, so they are already creating confidence in communities even if the consultation is yet to happen.
One of the key founder members of the Community Wealth Fund Alliance is a local trust that administers the Big Local programme, a programme that has inspired this community wealth fund proposal. The Big Local programme has been operating for 10 years and has generated considerable learning and evidence that could inform the design of the new pilot fund or funds that the amendment would enable.
The Big Local programme supports 150 neighbourhoods across the country that have each received just over £1 million in funding from the National Lottery Community Fund. That funding is placed directly into the hands of local residents, giving them the ability to make decisions about how to improve their neighbourhoods and their quality of life. Areas were selected on the basis that they suffered from higher-than-average levels of deprivation and had previously missed out on their fair share of lottery or other public funding.
An in-depth evaluation of 15 of the 150 Big Local areas half way through the programme outlined the benefits for individuals, groups and organisations and charted wider community change as a result of the funding and support offered. The benefits are considerable, including increased employment and access to employment opportunities, increased confidence and aspiration and reduced social isolation. The programme has also increased people’s sense of agency and belief in their own ability to make things happen.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in support of the amendment. As Committee was quite a long time ago, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I repeat some arguments.
We are all committed to building back better—to coin a phrase—and the proposed community wealth fund or funds could be a valuable foundation, enabling us to tackle a range of inequalities and improve outcomes for the residents of our most disadvantaged areas. As such, they potentially have a key role to play in the levelling-up agenda, as already noted, as increasingly it is recognised that levelling up must involve not just physical but social infrastructure, as the right reverend Prelate has said. As the report from the Bennett Institute for Public Policy argues, social infrastructure brings
“economic, social and civic value”
—and, we might add, cultural value—to areas where such assets may be weak. According to the British Academy, of which I am a fellow, the pandemic has shown:
“National capacity to respond to changing circumstances and challenges requires effort to sustain a strong web of communities and community engagement at local levels.”
Community-led networks are vital for combating inequalities over the long-term and must be at the centre of plans to build back better.
Social infrastructure matters to people. There is a lot of evidence that the presence or absence of it makes a big difference to how people feel about their neighbourhoods and their satisfaction with them. In areas with strong social infrastructure—particularly places and spaces to meet, and community organisations—people feel a greater sense of community, civic pride and belonging. These areas are more neighbourly and more cohesive. They also have better health and employment outcomes.
The Minister may have seen the recent report from Onward, a right-of-centre think tank, entitled Turnaround. It draws a number of positive lessons from the Labour Government’s new deal for communities, one of which is that
“the most significant sustained improvements are those with the strongest base of civic assets and most engaged communities. This suggests that the government should pay much more attention to nurturing the social fabric of a place alongside economic interventions.”
It also emphasises the importance of
“social infrastructure within local places”.
If we are to build back better, we need to invest in social infrastructure in these deprived neighbourhoods. We need—as is the case with the proposed community wealth funds—this investment to be long-term so that it provides continuity. Crucially, as my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton said, we need it to be community- led, albeit with communities receiving appropriate support to build community confidence and capacity. Again, to quote the Onward report, one of the lessons from previous regeneration policies is that
“communities must have a stake in regeneration, not merely be consulted … community involvement is essential, but many are capacity constrained”.
I realise that the Government are reluctant for the Bill to be amended to specify the distribution of dormant assets—and I am supportive of the intended consultation which will be the subject of later amendments —but, as has already been explained, this is a permissive amendment. I can see no reason for the Government not to support it.
One of the reasons I am speaking in support of this amendment is because it has such widespread support, as has already been said by the right reverend Prelate. Those 450 organisations to which he referred are part of a growing alliance advocating for the fund. This includes 40 local and combined authorities, most of the major independent charitable funders and all the main civil society umbrella groups, including the NCVO.
Polling research by Local Trust—and I express my appreciation for the briefing that it provided—demonstrates that the proposal would have the support of senior leaders in the financial services industry.
The community wealth fund has also been recommended in reports from a large number of think tanks and inquiries, including Localis, the Centre for Cities, the Fabian Society, New Local, the No Place Left Behind commission and the Civil Society Futures inquiry. It has also been endorsed by the APPG for “Left Behind” Neighbourhoods, of which I am a member.
I acknowledge concerns expressed by those who use dormant asset funding for the work that they already do. However, I see no reason why they should not continue to do that work and receive funds because these are new funds and no one is arguing that the whole of them should be used for community wealth funds. Again, this is a permissive amendment, not one that requires specific action. Such a strong case has been made by so many civil society groups. There is a growing consensus that a community wealth fund, or funds, is much needed and that investment should come from dormant assets. I therefore urge the Government to listen to civil society and accept this modest amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. I think the case for this amendment has been powerfully made and I want to show the breadth of support for it.
Last night in the policing Bill we were debating how we saw a grass-roots-up initiative starting from Nottingham that saw the practice of recording misogyny as a hate crime. So many new ideas and innovations start with the local and start in local areas. Yet we live in one of the most centralised nations on this planet, certainly in Europe, with power and resources concentrated here in Westminster. This amendment very modestly puts power and resources out into places that desperately need them.
Often, we are talking about places that no longer have a place to meet—even the pubs have closed in many of the poorest communities that I see. Lots of housing has recently been built without any public meeting places and places for people to gather at all. What we are talking about here is giving power to local communities that are really struggling, to let them decide for themselves what they need to do. I think we could see some truly wonderful innovations starting from the community wealth fund that then could spread far more widely. Perhaps appropriately for a Green, let us think about throwing out some seeds and seeing some wonderful plants flourishing, flowering and growing.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, when I initially heard about community wealth funds, I was rather sceptical, and I perhaps remain on the more sceptical end of the spectrum in your Lordships’ House. But during discussions on the Bill, I have become less sceptical about the idea, as the noble Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, have talked to me, along with the groups mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely.
Two things in particular have caused me to think again. The first is the experience of the pandemic and how everybody’s sense of locality and place has changed. I happen to live in south London, and one of the many things that got me through the toughest of times was discovering local parks that I had never come across before. Watching other people having to live their lives in a much more geographically restricted scope has made a new sense of place. I now understand —in a way that I perhaps did not before—that being able to appreciate and develop your community space will be a very important part of people’s physical, economic and mental well-being in future.
The second reason why I have changed my mind is this. The noble Baroness gave a long list of community initiatives that have flowed out over the past 30 years, many of them from the National Lottery, the new deal for communities and so on. Pretty much all of them were the release of resources into a community, with varying degrees of restriction on how they could be spent—but they were resources to be spent in poor communities.
This is about something different. It is about an investment fund that has to generate wealth within those communities. To do that, the people who will be managing it locally will have to learn and display economic development skills themselves. That is a different proposal from the ones before. The noble Baroness is right that, as we move through a huge period of economic change—green development and the green economy—if we get away from the old idea of development solely in buildings and talk about investment in economic skills and new jobs, managed in a much more local way, that has the potential to be different.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, was absolutely right: we had to grab a passing Bill and shove something on to it. But the very purpose of this Bill is to take assets that are lying dormant and put them into communities where people are financially excluded, do not have business skills or need some help with the generation of wealth and well-being. This is about doing that with people in their community, not yet another building. So I have changed my mind and think this is something different, and therefore I now think it is worthy of support.
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 Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for tabling this amendment relating to community wealth funds. I am also grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely, who spoke on behalf of his right reverend friend, who, as he explained, has made her valedictory speech to your Lordships’ House and is therefore unable to speak today. I offer my best wishes to her as she leaves your Lordships’ House for a well-earned retirement and thank her for her contributions, both here in your Lordships’ House and across the diocese; it is one I hold particularly dear, having been baptised in it and having many relatives who live there still. I know that she will be much missed, but we are delighted that, through the apostolic succession, the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Ely was able to speak for her today.
I hope that, during my remarks, I can reassure all noble Lords who have spoken that it is already possible for community wealth funds to be a named cause in an order made under Section 18A, and that I can demonstrate why this amendment, even in its semi-skimmed form—if that is the evolution from the full-fat version to which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, alluded earlier—is still unnecessary.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. With the exception of the Minister—although not entirely with the exception of the Minister—all have been rather in support of the amendment. I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say, and by the end of his speech I was almost convinced that he was going to agree with our side of the argument.
The key to this amendment is one word, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, touched on it: the word “may”. This amendment is extraordinarily modest. It just says to the Government, “Look, you may do this; you don’t have to”. For me, that is the key, because the Government may do it after a period of consultation. It does not seem to me to be a great leap of faith to encourage the creation of community wealth funds for social infrastructure in having the consultation that can take place at any time, where this provision actually enables the Government to be more active in supporting, if they wish at some later stage, the introduction of pilots running community wealth funds.
Noble Lords have all spoken to the importance of creating social infrastructure. That is what this amendment seeks to do, through ensuring that we create community wealth funds. That is the part that particularly attracts me to it, because in my day job as an employee of Business in the Community we seek to create levelling up through work in places. One essential thing we do not have ready access to is good, robust, sustainable funding. In future, I can see community wealth funds becoming exactly that.
It is critical that we provide communities with that hope and potential. Many of our poorest communities do not have the capacity to generate funds or the social infrastructure to enable them to develop as communities and grow the resilience and strength they need. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, touched on this rather well in talking about her experiences during lockdown. I experienced similar feelings; well-managed, manicured open spaces provide you with a lifeline, inspiration and an ability to go out, enjoy fresh air and breathe and live again. Many of us had that experience, particularly during the first lockdown. Those things and places need nurturing and looking after. They are community assets, and something like community wealth funds will ensure that they are there and are well managed and looked after.
I will not detain the House too much longer. The noble Lord’s primary argument against the amendment was consultation. There is no reason why that cannot take place. It is already taking place. He also said that the power is already there; why not use this clause as a way of driving that and supplementing the power that is already there? It is useful in highlighting the importance and value of creating those community assets and ensuring that we have social infrastructure that works for local communities.
At an earlier stage of the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, suggested that the ideas were not yet perfected. I do not think that is the case. That now seems to have fallen away from the Government’s range of arguments. I agree with the Minister that we need sustainable, long-term funding models. Some of those already exist, but this would add to and empower local communities in a very specific and direct way. It would not be top-down, but bottom-up. It would enable communities to thrive and do much to tackle the long-outstanding needs of some of those communities which are obviously in urgent need of levelling up.
For those reasons, I wish to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
“(1A) Regulations made under this section must specify that any organisation in receipt of a distribution of dormant account money—(a) must demonstrate that any returns to private companies or individuals are commensurate with the overall aim of delivering public good, and(b) must not be used to enhance investor returns.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that a distribution of dormant assets money must be to an organisation that has an overall aim of delivering public good and must not be used to enhance investor returns.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this amendment was triggered by remarks made in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who was the very capable Minister then who was replaced by another very capable Minister. She was very open in response to a question that had been asked quite innocently. We wanted to put in an amendment in Committee a requirement to confirm that the dormant asset money would flow to charities or recognised and formalised social enterprises.
In her response, the noble Baroness said no, that the Government wanted to make sure that the money was also available to mission-focused for-profit companies. There was general shock around the Committee, as everyone talked about the Dormant Assets Bill as providing money to charity and social enterprises, and it sent me away to Google. Perhaps others in your Lordships’ House were far less naive than I, but there is a massive business growing in the social impact arena these days, which has become very attractive to the private sector.
To give your Lordships an idea of who is coming to play in this particular arena, I will refer to one of endless websites that contain copies of similar discussions: “Mainstream venture capital … funds”—we are talking about VC funds—
“are beginning to look for a new kind of unicorn—companies that will not only provide huge financial returns”—
we are talking here about 12% returns for modest venture capital, perhaps with earlier-stage money 20% returns—
“but also create huge social impact.”
It notes London and San Francisco as two of the leading hubs for these kinds of investments.
I have no argument with a venture capitalist who puts money into social good. That is absolutely fine as far as I am concerned. But I am very concerned if that entity is seeking grants from the dormant asset fund and turning that around to enhance the returns to its investor, who is expecting a return around the 12% to 20% mark. I can see why it is extremely attractive to the for-profit company; after all, it is very hard in most circumstances for social impact to generate returns of that extraordinary size. But if there is a very significant grant coming from the dormant asset fund, one can achieve those kinds of benchmarks easily. I do not think that is the purpose that was embedded in the original Bill or the purpose which most of us who are associated with this have in mind.
The amendment is not an attempt to exclude all for-profit companies, because I understand that there are some areas where they have been very useful, for example in teaching financial literacy. It is to make sure that they are not plucking extraordinary returns as a consequence of grants from the dormant assets fund. Charities and social enterprises seeking funds and grant money may indeed find that they have some excess over the particular project that they have been working with, but their whole constitutional structure requires them to make sure that money flows back into good causes. I do not want this to turn into an opportunity for that money to flow back to large-scale investors.
As we all know, the oversight process in the Dormant Assets Bill—we will talk about this on the very last amendment—is very weak, because in the original concept the end users were going to be charities and social enterprises that were under constraint and governance of various different kinds. Therefore, an additional level of scrutiny was not a matter of significant concern. With this big expansion, and with the purposes to which the fund can be applied being essentially in the gift of the Secretary of State, this becomes a major concern.
We are all concerned about money being spent inappropriately. Nothing would be more damning to this whole process than a major scandal in which we suddenly have a newspaper describing circumstances in which money from the dormant assets fund has gone to an investor seeking very large returns. This could compromise not just that particular project but the whole programme. Frankly, I do not think that is a principle that should be allowed to proceed in this Bill, which is why I have moved this amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to commend the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on her alertness in uncovering this issue, and to make a very simple comparison with something that has occupied a great deal of time in your Lordships’ House lately: the water companies, and what we have seen happen with them, with, very often, hedge fund owners involved, massive profits being taken out and massive loads of debt. This is a terribly important amendment. I regret not attaching my name to it. I certainly would have done had I been alerted to it earlier. This is terribly important, and I encourage the noble Baroness to keep pushing.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I do not have a great deal to add. The argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is very sound and was well made and well researched. We had an interesting debate on this topic in Grand Committee, and I am grateful to our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches for allowing us to return to it through this reformulated amendment.
During the previous debate, examples were raised of organisations that are not social enterprises or charities, but which nevertheless deliver public good through the use of dormant assets funding. This new amendment captures that reality, while introducing the safeguard that these funds, which are finite and will be highly sought after, are not used to enhance investors’ returns, where that may be a concern.
I do not really understand why the Government should not write this kind of safeguard into the Bill. Failing that, will the Minister put something on the record that will provide us with some comfort? We need that reassurance, protection and level of accountability.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I will just add two points to the very convincing case made by noble friend Lady Kramer. First, the Minister knows from all our discussions that we on these Benches have concerns about the loose nature of this scheme and the somewhat loose definition of its purposes. Therefore, it remains a concern that it is a not insignificant pot of money that can be very easily diverted. Part of what we are trying to do this afternoon, in a number of different ways, is to bring this scheme under a much tighter definition and close loopholes.
Secondly, we listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord himself, when we had discussions. They explained to us, in particular, that the new purposes under the Bill—financial inclusion and the very ambitious programme that Fair4All Finance has of putting loan sharks out of business—might necessitate the sorts of skills that are not commonly found within the social enterprise or charitable sector. It might require there to be companies in forms that are not usually found within the social enterprise sector, either. So I would like the Minister to acknowledge, in dealing with this amendment, that it is specifically that part of the scheme which has caused us to move. We are not talking about private companies entering into the other parts of the Bill, to my mind—unless he can make a case for them to do so.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for their amendment and for their vigilance and scrutiny in this area. I am grateful also for their time the other day, when we had a helpful discussion.
Amendment 2 concerns the direction of the English portion of dormant assets funding and seeks to ensure that money cannot be used purely for profit but must have public good at its heart. It is already enshrined in primary legislation that dormant assets funding must be distributed to initiatives with a social or environmental purpose. This is a clear and core function of the scheme and it remains unchanged in the Bill. The Government of course agree that private profit is not the purpose of the dormant assets scheme.
The noble Baronesses’ concerns, as expressed in the amendment and their contributions today, relate to the scheme’s current support for social investment. As I mentioned in the debate on the previous group, dormant assets funding has provided £465 million to Big Society Capital and Access over the last 10 years. During that time, social impact investing in the UK has grown almost eightfold, increasing from £830 million in 2011 to £6.4 billion now, thanks in large part to those two organisations. It is largely by leveraging private capital alongside dormant assets that the market has been able to expand in this way, providing the voluntary, community, and social enterprise sector with access to billions of pounds of investment.
To give an example, dormant assets funding enabled Big Society Capital to invest £6 million in the Fair By Design fund, which aims to eradicate the poverty premium by 2028. Fair By Design invests in several initiatives, including some businesses with considerable impact which provide services in sectors such as energy, insurance, borrowing, transport and food, to support over 340,000 people across the country. Its work has helped those people collectively to save £12 million per year on goods and services for which they were previously paying more than those who were financially better off. The scheme advances important opportunities such as this for collaborating with the private sector and civil society organisations to amplify its impact, within the boundaries of governance structures which ensure that the money is managed appropriately.
I hope I can reassure noble Lords that robust systems are in place to ensure that the money funds projects delivered by organisations that prioritise impact. As a registered charity itself, Access employs strict eligibility criteria for its funding, which ensures that money flows only to those social enterprises and charities that it was created to support. Similarly, £2.5 billion from Big Society Capital and its co-investors is being used to support over 1,500 social enterprises and charities across the country. Both organisations apply layers of due diligence to ensure that the intermediary fund managers with whom they work also have impact embedded in their approaches. Fund managers applying for Big Society Capital funding are required to present a social impact plan during the due diligence process, and Access requires its funds to be held in finance structures that cannot be used commercially.
As these existing structures have operated effectively over the past decade, we do not consider it necessary to place in primary legislation a requirement such as that proposed by Amendment 2, though we understand the concerns the noble Baronesses had and the vigilance which led them to table it. The scheme already ensures that funds go towards organisations with the overall aim of delivering public good, and we will ensure that this continues to be the case.
Ultimately, it remains the Government’s priority to afford people the opportunity to have a say in how funds are distributed in the country, including whether social investment should remain a priority. That is why we have committed to a public consultation to welcome wide-ranging views on how these funds can best have an impact on social and environmental priorities in England. Those are the reasons we cannot accept the amendment, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied to withdraw it.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am glad to have raised the issue and I will be withdrawing the amendment, but I hope very much that the point that I have made will carry through into the Government’s thinking, because this is a constantly changing field. As the Minister knows, with mission-focused companies there is nothing to say that they cannot pay their directors what they like; they can pay what salaries they like and make what returns they like to their core investors. We very much hope that in the reporting requirements that he will talk about later there will be real clarity around this issue. He can expect to find quite a number of Written Questions asking him to detail those kinds of benchmarks, so that we understand what is actually happening with this dormant assets fund. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 3. If Amendment 3 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 4 or 5 due to pre-emption.
Amendment 3
(a) carry out a public consultation about the purposes for which, or the kinds of person to which, the money apportioned under section 17 for meeting English expenditure should be distributed, and(b) consult the Big Lottery Fund about a draft of the order.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would have the effect of adding to 18A(3) of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 (as inserted by Clause 29) a new duty to carry out a public consultation before making a section 18A(1) order, in place of the duty in the current section 18A(3)(b). The consultation would relate to what, or who, should be supported by dormant assets money distributed in England.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, a number of noble Lords tabled and signed amendments in Committee which sought to broaden the range of consultees listed in Clause 29 of the Bill, which I believe remains the primary intention of this group of amendments. We share the view about the importance of considering how dormant assets funding can be used most effectively, and we are keen to get a wide range of views to help shape our position, as I said in previous debates. That is why we have consistently committed to launching a public consultation on the social or environmental focus of the English portion of funding before the first order is laid under Clause 29.
In response to the multiple calls which have been made in your Lordships’ House, we are happy to formalise this commitment in legislation. Amendment 3, in my name, therefore makes a public consultation a requirement before any changes can be made to the focus of the English portion of funds now or in the future. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for adding his name and the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition to our amendment.
Amendment 3 takes the broadest and most inclusive approach to ensuring that the scheme benefits the most pressing social or environmental priorities in England. The Government plan to launch the first of these consultations after the Bill receives Royal Assent and are happy to commit to this lasting at least 12 weeks. Our amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the National Lottery Community Fund, as the named distributor of dormant assets funding, about a draft of this order. The order would then be subject to the scrutiny of both Houses through the draft affirmative procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lady Merron, who signed Amendment 4 but is unable to participate in today’s debate. I should explain that one of our concerns has been a lack of clarity around future consultation. We have already had some discussion this afternoon about consultation, and, of course, it was raised by a number of colleagues during the Bill’s Second Reading and featured fairly heavily during the debates in Grand Committee.
On the face of it, we do not really understand why Amendment 4, which lists a variety of topics and proposed participants, is not acceptable to the Government, but we are nevertheless grateful to the Minister for tabling Amendment 3. For that reason, I agreed to co-sign it on behalf of our Benches. That amendment ensures that there will have to be a full public consultation, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has already described, which will have to take place before uses for dormant assets funds are determined in regulations.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for tabling Amendment 5, which seeks to ensure that future consultations include consideration of the merits of establishing community wealth funds. This is a good addition, and we hope that the Minister can address this point explicitly in his response—not least, of course, because we have passed and supported the community wealth fund amendment this afternoon.
I am therefore looking for further reassurance from the Minister that the public consultation will be run in accordance with Cabinet Office best practice, including the Secretary of State being proactive when engaging with charities and social enterprises, rather than merely posting a notice online. We are satisfied by the Government’s amendment, but we would like to see them go further. I guess that our amendment is inviting them to flesh out exactly how they see this working in some more detail.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 4, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 5 in my name, which augments the original amendment by ensuring that the consultation makes specific reference to community wealth funds as a potential beneficiary of dormant assets.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett for their support—and to the Government for listening to at least some of what we said in Committee about consultation so that, as we have heard, the Bill now makes clear that there will be a public consultation. I am very grateful to the Minister for, first, finding the time to have a word about this yesterday and, secondly, for confirming on the record that the consultation will last for at least 12 weeks, which I and others pressed for in Committee.
I will simply speak to Amendment 5, about the explicit reference to community wealth funds. When this was raised in Committee, the then Minister’s initial response was that she was unable to give any reassurance because:
“We need a collective agreement on what goes into any consultation document”.—[Official Report, 23/6/21; col. GC 99.]
But when I read that in Hansard, I realised that I did not really understand what she meant. Collective among whom? Could the Minister please explain? Could we not collectively agree today that the consultation should include specific reference to community wealth funds because, otherwise, many of those consulted might not have heard of them and only those who already know about them would be in a position to support them?
In doing so, I do not think it excludes other possible uses of the fund. The Minister raised this fear in his response to Amendment 1, but having a consultation that does not put out some options will not be terribly useful. Therefore, all we are asking is that he makes clear that this is one of the options and that the consultation would explain what community wealth funds are.
When I pressed the then Minister, she made a commitment to consider the community wealth fund proposal
“as we review the range of questions that go into the consultation.”—[Official Report, 23/6/21; col. GC 100.]
Can the Minister reconfirm that commitment? Regardless of what happens to Amendment 1 when it is sent to the Commons, it is important that the consultation on the use of the new dormant assets includes explicit reference to a proposal that has such widespread support from national civil society organisations.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 4 and I would gladly support Amendment 5. Government Amendment 3 is definitely an improvement on the previous situation, which was unclear; the Government were sure they would have a public consultation but were not really required to do so.
When the original Dormant Assets Bill was passed, the purposes for which dormant assets could be used were on the face of the Bill in primary legislation. Consultation, now that the Secretary of State is in a position to expand that range significantly, is absolutely vital. In Amendment 4, we reflect some of my ongoing frustrations with consultation after consultation: they fall to the attention of the usual suspects and, indeed, the responses of the usual suspects are very often taken into serious consideration, but they never get out into the wider world. When there are lots of diverse views, perhaps supported or mentioned by only small handfuls of people because they have never occurred to others, those tend to go into the “dismiss” bucket almost immediately.
I know how difficult it is to structure a consultation that really does consult. I say that from the position of having been a Minister during the coalition years, when I wanted to use a consultation to bring in new ideas as well as to get people’s responses to possible avenues that we might go down. It was a sheer battle with my own staff to devise such a consultation and questionnaire and to leave space for open responses and gather them in. It is not the norm; I am very well aware of that. I do want to press the Minister, because this should be going to a much wider range of groups than might normally keep an eye open for a consultation —the wide range of social enterprises and charities that go out to various communities, particularly deprived communities. Those communities tend to be the least alert to the fact that there is a government consultation happening or to knowing how to respond to it.
Then there is Parliament. Most of us understand that secondary legislation is not worth the paper it is written on in terms of getting parliamentary opinion or any potential for amendment, so it is important that the relevant committees of Parliament are engaged with something as significant as this. I press the Minister: we understand that he has moved some way, but we need quality. The style is perhaps there but there is no quality or content behind it to give us full reassurance. If he will not accept Amendments 4 and 5, can he at least give us a verbal assurance of the kind of quality that we want within the consultation itself?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I was reassured by my noble friend’s introductory speech and the deal that has been hacked out between him and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has, in part, shot my fox because I wanted to talk about the usual suspects, which she referred to. That is the danger, although I say to the signatories to Amendment 4 that it looks to me like a pretty good list of usual suspects in that amendment. I was not sure that we were not just going back down the track that we were trying to avoid going down.
My reason for supporting the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was to make sure that we would make a big effort to get down to the smaller organisations, which often had unique insights into the problems of a particular area. From my point of view, I rather doubt whether that goes well into legislation, but it is the sort of area where a good strong ministerial Statement, given on the Floor, would reassure a lot of us that there will be words that we can go back to if the consultation does not reach as far, as deep and as wide as some of us think it should.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their recognition of the action the Government have taken on this, even if it is conditional at the outset. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer, Lady Merron and Lady Lister of Burtersett, for the important issues they have raised in tabling Amendment 4. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, my noble friend Lord Hodgson, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for Amendment 5.
We have had a good debate, both in Committee and again today, and I welcome the support shown for securing the widest possible input into determining the future spending priorities for England. I share the desire raised by noble Lords to ensure that the public, beneficiaries, both Houses of Parliament, social enterprises and charities can have their say on the future focus of dormant assets funding; although I disagree about the means and submit that Amendment 3 is a better way to achieve this, we all share the same intent.
As my noble friend and predecessor Lady Barran outlined in Committee, it is our position that everybody who is interested, rather than a collection of predetermined or specified stakeholders, should be consulted. That is why we have chosen to take the broadest approach available in Amendment 3, and why we believe that Amendment 4 is not as inclusive.
Dormant assets funding is not government money; it originates from individuals who have lost or forgotten about their asset and is voluntarily transferred into the scheme by responsible industry participants who, despite their best efforts, have not been able to reunite those moneys with their owners. The scheme is a unique example of collaboration between the public, private and civil society sectors, responding to the imperative to put forgotten money to better use, rather than letting it gather dust in inactive accounts. Because of the wide range of organisations and individuals that are potentially affected by the scheme, we want to avoid at all costs making further specifications in this clause which could imply that certain groups are more important than others that it might be equally appropriate to consult.
The government amendment is sufficiently broad and, in line with common practice, parliamentary committees will continue to be able to consider relevant issues as they see fit in the future. That is why we do not think it is appropriate or necessary explicitly to name parliamentary committees as a consultee. However, we are happy to commit on the record to engaging with relevant and interested parliamentary committees for the first consultation.
As noble Lords have highlighted, the social and environmental focus of the English portion is a significant and important question. The Government agree that the consultation must be open for a proportionate amount of time to allow for considered and good-quality responses. That is why I am happy to place on the record our commitment that the first consultation under this section will last for at least 12 weeks. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others for their appreciation of that.
I also reassure noble Lords that our intention is to consult widely, taking care to welcome local community voices into the discussion to ensure that we capture as many views as we can, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, my noble friend Lord Hodgson and others rightly pressed.
The Government will continue to consider the most appropriate length of future consultations, in line with Cabinet Office guidance. I hope that our previous conduct in this area has proven we take that seriously and are committed to ensuring fair and open consultations on the dormant assets scheme. The 2020 consultation on its expansion, for example, was extended from 12 to 21 weeks, as requested by voices in the industry in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, to ensure that everybody had the time to contribute meaningfully. I am pleased to say that that was very successful: we received 89 responses, representing over 500 organisations and individuals, which informed the development of this legislation. Given the range of interested parties involved and the complexity of the policy area, we will always ensure that a proportionate length of time is provided for consultation. In order to preserve the integrity and protect the impact of the scheme, we also do not anticipate changing the causes regularly.
The consultation would seek views on what social or environmental causes should be supported with dormant assets funding in England. However, we do not think it is appropriate to specify the scope and content of the consultation in primary legislation, including the extent to which the scheme is meeting some of its underlying policy objectives or what additional assets or operational changes would improve its performance. We believe it would be most appropriate and effective to consider those as part of Amendment 7. We therefore do not support combining aspects of this equally important work with the duty to consult, particularly as the latter relates only to England.
Our commitment to an open, fair and inclusive consultation is also the reason why we cannot accept Amendment 5, from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which seeks to require the Government to consult on community wealth funds every time an order on English expenditure is considered. I am conscious that we went into a more detailed discussion of the community wealth fund model in our debate on Amendment 1. Even if I did not convince your Lordships’ House not to support that amendment, I hope I convinced noble Lords that the Government are by no means against the proposals for community wealth funds but maintain that putting them in the Bill, and in the case of this amendment legislating for them to be consulted on every time an order was considered, would be inappropriate.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am conscious that the Minister has said “every time” every time. Could he give the commitment on the record that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was looking for: that the first time—that is, in the first consultation—the Government will give serious consideration to including a reference to community wealth funds and an explanation of what they are?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness has anticipated my next remarks: I was going to reiterate the commitment given by my noble friend Lady Barran in Committee that the Government will consider including community wealth funds in the first consultation launched under Clause 29. I have already noted that the Government are considering the community wealth fund model as part of the wider development of the levelling-up White Paper. As the work on that is ongoing, now is not the right time to commit to any particular source of funding to be associated with the proposals, but we will continue to look into this matter. As I committed earlier today, the Government will ensure that the consultation provides the opportunity for people to respond with their view, including advocates of community wealth funds and those who think that is their preferred course of action.
For these reasons, the Government feel that our amendments to bolster the consultation requirements and to introduce a separate review and reporting requirement better accomplish our joint aspiration to secure the scheme’s success. I believe that Amendment 3, which I am pleased to say has cross-party support, strengthens the Bill and addresses the House’s desire that any consultation on the use of future dormant assets funding in England must not be restricted to a limited number of perspectives.
In the light of that, I hope the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Lister, will be content with what we have proposed in our amendments and the assurances that I have given today and so may be minded not to press their amendments. With thanks again to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for putting his name to it, I commend Amendment 3 to the House.
Baroness Kramer
“(3A) An order under this section may not be made unless the Secretary of State has certified that dormant account money will be used to fund projects, or aspects of project, for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by a Government department.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to certify that dormant assets money would be additional to, and not replacing, Government spending.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this amendment deals with additionality. It was the intent of the original Bill, which placed a responsibility on the Big Lottery Fund alone to ensure that the moneys were additional to expenditures that one would expect a government department to make; I assume that means any level of department, including local authorities. That seems to be a fundamental concept which sits behind the dormant assets fund. In our early discussions, the Government constantly confirmed that the principle of additionality was an immovable one for this Act.
One should always spend some time looking at government websites. I was slightly surprised to find a government announcement from June 2021 of financial support for voluntary community and social enterprises, to enable them to respond to the coronavirus. This was a very good thing which I have no criticism of; however, according to the announcement:
“The government has pledged £750 million to ensure VCSE can continue their vital work supporting the country during the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, including £200 million for the Coronavirus Community Support Fund, along with an additional £150 million from dormant bank and building society accounts”.
In other words, that means dormant asset funds. Technically, this does not say that the Government have said to the folks at the dormant asset funds, “We want £150 million from you to support this activity, because we don’t really want to put in more than £750 million”, but it is a very grey area. Anyone reading this would assume that the Government were announcing what they would regard as the use of funds under their control.
I am very concerned, because additionality can be a very grey area. What should be the responsibility of the local authority of a particular government department? What should be the add-on which comes from the dormant assets fund, with its focus on supporting the additionality that is provided by the charity and social enterprise sectors? Therefore, I have very quickly drafted an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to certify that as far as he knows, the additionality principle is in play. I am slightly surprised that the Government have not said, “The Secretary of State only wants this to be additionality and is delighted to sign a piece of paper confirming that this is how the money will be used.”
That is the rationale behind this important amendment. From the announcement I read a moment ago, it is not difficult to see that the creep across the boundary is relatively easy. The initial dormant assets fund was under £1 billion. The new assets that will be brought into scope as a consequence of this Bill amount to a minimum of an additional £2 billion. As expansion goes beyond that, that number will keep increasing, so we are talking about very large amounts of money. The Treasury could view this as an opportunity to constrain public sector debt or to enhance particular spending programmes.
It is very important that we get an assurance from the Minister that this amendment is not needed, otherwise, it will be necessary for me to press it. I have been listening to the response from the Minister, but my noble friend Lady Barker, who is a specialist in this field and far more expert than I, will be the person who is really listening. I will see whether she is satisfied—if not, I will ask the House to pronounce on something that I believe is fundamental.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important topic. It took quite a bit of our time in Committee, has been raised again today and runs as a thread through our concerns. We have had some discussion with the Minister between stages, and useful discussion it was.
We acknowledge that additionality has been built into Amendment 7 in the next group, but we are very sympathetic to the call from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Barker, for the Secretary of State to certify as part of the regulation-making process that funds will indeed be on top of existing government commitments. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has made quite a compelling argument. Dormant assets are going to grow. There are many other sources of dormant assets not included within the current scheme. I could see a hungry Treasury, worried about the supply of funds in the future, seeking to make use of substitute funding from dormant assets. I think we will need to be thoroughly convinced by the words of the Minister this afternoon if he is to avoid us having a further Division.
If the Government have no plans to pull accounting tricks, I would have thought that there was no issue with accepting this amendment or perhaps introducing a new text either at Third Reading or when the Bill moves to the House of Commons to put this issue beyond doubt. That is what I am listening for this afternoon and hoping to hear from the noble Lord.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I wish to add two points to those made by my noble friend Lady Kramer. It is right that in the next government amendment there is reference to a report and the additionality principle being included in that report. The reason why we drafted this amendment in the way we did was the requirement for the Secretary of State to certify the matter. One of the criticisms that was initially made of this Bill by the Delegated Powers Committee was the number of Henry VIII powers being assumed by the Minister.
The second reason is that the next government amendment refers to:
“Periodic review and report to Parliament”.
It does not say what those periods should be. Therefore, we are trying to deal with exactly the sort of scenario outlined by my noble friend Lady Kramer, where the Government suddenly dip into this back pocket of money and start to use it. That is the reason why it is there and why we think it is so important.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Barker, for tabling Amendment 6 on the additionality principle. I also thank the noble Baronesses for their time in the productive discussion that we had on this issue. I hope that during the course of my remarks I can reassure them and other noble Lords that the intentions of this amendment are sufficiently covered both in the 2008 Act and through the Government’s Amendment 7, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, just alluded.
The principle of additionality has successfully under- pinned the scheme since its inception and will continue to be a core principle of its distribution across the UK. In line with the proposed wording in Amendment 6, the 2008 Act already describes additionality as the
“principle that dormant account money should be used to fund projects, or aspects of projects, for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by … a Government department”
or devolved Administration. Therefore, the principle as defined by this amendment is already enshrined in legislation.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Can I just ask for some clarification? Does not that responsibility apply only to the one distributive entity—to the Big Lottery Fund, or whatever it is called—and very conspicuously not to any other distribution sources or to the Secretary of State?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Without having the 2008 Act in front of me as well as the Bill, I am afraid that I may not be able to give the noble Baroness the speedy response that she seeks.
I shall address the point that she also raised—while seeking an answer, if I can give her a definitive answer now—about the £150 million that was released last June. As she noted, the scheme released £150 million of dormant assets funding to support the response to the Covid-19 pandemic and recovery across England. That was distributed by the four spend organisations in line with the 2008 Act. In this instance, it is important to note that the funding was entirely separate from the UK-wide charity support package of £750 million, which was announced in April 2020.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
The reference is in Schedule 3 to the 2008 Act—on page 24—under Part 3, headed “Reports and Accounts”, where it says in paragraph 9(3), in relation to the Big Lottery Fund:
“The report shall set out the Fund’s policy and practice in relation to the principle that dormant account money should be used to fund projects, or aspects of projects, for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by”—
and then it lists
“a Government department … the Welsh Ministers … the Scottish Ministers, or … a Northern Ireland department”.
That does not appear to apply to anything other than the Big Lottery Fund. When the 2008 Act went through, the only distribution entity was the Big Lottery Fund. There are now three others, and the new Bill anticipates potentially creating more distributors, whose responsibilities will be directed by the Secretary of State.
I fully accept that, in the original concept and structure of the Act, additionality was a fundamental underlying principle. That does not appear to have carried over into the expansion that is embedded in the new Bill. That is my concern.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that, and I hope that what I go on to say will address that point. If there is a change in distributor or an additional distributor is established, there are already powers in the 2008 Act to amend the legislation to ensure that any new or additional distributor must similarly report on their policy and practice in relation to the additionality principle. The noble Baroness is very welcome to intervene again, if I have not addressed her point.
The question to consider is not about the definition of additionality but where the accountability for that principle should lie. We fully support all the points raised in Committee regarding the fundamental importance of ensuring that the principle is adhered to, but we believe that how the 2008 Act positions the additionality principle, plus the new provisions in government Amendment 7, is the right approach to ensuring this and I welcome the opportunity to clarify why.
The Labour Government which brought in the 2008 legislation ensured that the accountability for the additionality principle lies with the named distributor responsible for all the funds across the UK, rather than the Secretary of State. This Government agree that it remains the most appropriate place for its inclusion in primary legislation. As we outlined in Committee, Schedule 3 to the 2008 Act requires the National Lottery Community Fund, the current distributor of dormant assets funding across the UK, to set out in its annual report its policy and practice in relation to the additionality principle. These reports must be laid before Parliament, and this Bill does not change that requirement. In fact, Amendment 7, to which we will come in a moment, seeks to bolster this further by requiring additionality to be included in periodic reports of the scheme’s effectiveness, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, noted. Your Lordships’ House will continue to have the opportunity to scrutinise how the National Lottery Community Fund approaches this in practice. This will ensure that funding continues to be directed to causes which fulfil the scheme’s objectives while being additional to central or devolved government funds.
As has been noted, the principle as it stands is critical to the scheme’s success, and our partners in industry have made it clear that their participation is reliant on it. As this is not central government funding, and as the Government have limited control over only the English portion, it is appropriate that the primary accountability for the principle should sit with the UK-wide distributor of the funding and its accounting officer—namely, the National Lottery Community Fund. Indeed, the fund is well versed in making this assessment, as an additionality principle also applies to its other portfolio of funds. To date, there has never been a breach of this principle of which the Government are aware.
We feel there is no evidence that the principle needs to be altered, and we believe the current approach is serving the scheme well. It has been upheld for 10 years, and we do not think it necessary or desirable to significantly change a demonstrably successful approach.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Is the Minister saying he is making a commitment from the Floor that, when additional distributors are added—and this Bill contemplates that —they will be put under the same additionality requirement as the Big Lottery Fund?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The commitment is already made in the 2008 Act. If there is a change in distributor, or if an additional distributor is established— and I should stress that there are currently no plans for that—there are already powers in the 2008 Act to amend the legislation to ensure that any new or additional distributor must similarly report on their policy and practice in relation to the additionality principle.
However, we have responded to the noble Baroness’s desire to see the Secretary of State more specifically held accountable to the principle, and we have reinforced its importance even further by including it within Amendment 7, which we will come on to shortly, on reviewing the scheme and reporting to Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said in Committee:
“We must also be able to work out from all the reporting that we do get to see that the principle of additionality is being adhered to.”—[Official Report, 21/6/21; col. GC 9.]
We thoroughly agree, which is why our Amendment 7 will ensure that the report must include any policies and practices of the principle by the Secretary of State as well as the National Lottery Community Fund. This provision responds to requests made by noble Lords that the Secretary of State should be held more expressly accountable for ensuring that and explaining how dormant assets funding is used in ways that are genuinely additional to central Government expenditure. This demonstrates our ongoing commitment to ensuring that the principle continues to be honoured, including the ways in which funding flows to distributing bodies and on to beneficiaries.
That is why we cannot accept the amendment. I hope I have reassured the noble Baronesses that we understand their concerns, and that is why we have brought forward the additionality provision in our review and reporting amendment, Amendment 7. I can see the noble Baroness is rightly consulting the 2008 Act for the references to it. I hope on that basis she will be content with what we have proposed and content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the attention he has given to this, but I will pick him up on one issue. A power to do something is only a power; it is not an undertaking that the thing will be done. I do not think he has spelled out, as I hoped he would, how exactly the Secretary of State would be reviewing the additionality and demonstrating the additionality. It may be that he is going to come on to that under Amendment 7. But it seems to me that it is only the Secretary of State who can determine whether something is additional or not, because only the Secretary of State can have full knowledge of what the Government’s overall intentions were. I think this is important. I think we have had the example my noble friend talked about, and I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
“Periodic review and report to Parliament
(1) The Secretary of State must carry out periodic reviews of the following matters—(a) the operation of the dormant assets scheme and the alternative scheme under section 2 of the 2008 Act during the period to which the review relates;(b) the effectiveness of the steps taken during that period (by institutions holding or providing assets within the scope of the dormant assets scheme or the alternative scheme) to reunite assets with their owners;(c) any use made of the powers conferred by section 19 during that period;(d) any use that may be made of those powers after that period.(2) In reviewing the matters described in subsection (1)(a) the Secretary of State must consider—(a) how many institutions have made transfers;(b) how much money has been transferred;(c) the effectiveness of the arrangements made with institutions for meeting repayment claims.(3) The steps referred to in subsection (1)(b) include anything done with a view to tracing, and verifying the identity of, either (or both) of the following, in relation to a particular asset—(a) the person whose right to payment (or right to direct payment) is or would be extinguished by a transfer;(b) where the asset is the proceeds of another asset, the owner or beneficiary of that other asset (before its conversion into proceeds).(4) In subsections (2) and (3)— “transfer” means a transfer of an amount to an authorised reclaim fund as mentioned in section 1(1)(a) or 2(1)(a) of the 2008 Act or section 2(1)(a), 5(1)(a), 8(1)(a), 12(1)(a) or 14(1)(a) above;“repayment claim” means a claim against an authorised reclaim fund relating to a right to payment arising as mentioned in section 1(2)(b) or 2(2)(b) of the 2008 Act or section 2(2)(b), 5(2)(b) or (3)(b), 8(2)(b), 12(2)(b) or 14(2)(b) above. (5) The matters within the scope of a review do not include the regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority of an authorised reclaim fund or any other institution.(6) The Secretary of State must—(a) make arrangements to enable anyone with an interest in any aspect of a review to make representations,(b) consider all representations received, and(c) set out the results and conclusions of the review in a report and lay it before Parliament.(7) The report of a review must also include—(a) information about the uses made by any authorised reclaim fund of its financial resources during such period as the Secretary of State considers appropriate,(b) information about the uses made of dormant assets money for meeting English expenditure during such period as the Secretary of State considers appropriate,(c) the text of any directions given by the Secretary of State under section 22 of the 2008 Act which have effect during the period mentioned in paragraph (b), and(d) information about any policy and practice in relation to the additionality principle of—(i) the body or bodies specified in section 16(1) of the 2008 Act, and(ii) the Secretary of State, in exercising functions under Part 2 of that Act.(8) The report of a review may include information about the uses made of dormant assets money for meeting Welsh expenditure, Scottish expenditure or Northern Ireland expenditure during such period as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(9) In this section—(a) “the additionality principle” is the principle that dormant assets money should be used to fund projects, or aspects of projects, for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by a government department, the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers or a Northern Ireland department;(b) “dormant assets money”, “English expenditure”, “Northern Ireland expenditure”, “Scottish expenditure” and “Welsh expenditure” have the same meaning as in Part 2 of the 2008 Act.(10) The first report under this section must be laid no more than 3 years after the day on which this Act is passed.(11) Any subsequent report must be laid no more than 5 years after the day on which the previous report was laid.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would require periodic reviews of the dormant assets scheme and the alternative scheme, with a report to Parliament on the results. A report would include certain additional information, on matters such as the expenditure of the reclaim fund, and the use made of dormant assets money, and the additionality principle, in England. Information about use of dormant asset money in the rest of the UK would be optional. For practical reasons information included about the use of dormant assets money, or the additionality principle in England, is likely to be information publicly available elsewhere.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this area and for the issues raised in Committee and during meetings with me and my predecessor, my noble friend Lady Barran. We have carefully considered the different concerns raised about the need for the dormant assets scheme to be periodically reviewed and reported on to Parliament. We have both heard the strength of feeling about the importance of transparency, and welcome and echo the enthusiasm for maintaining momentum beyond this phase of expansion.
That is why the Government have brought forward Amendment 7, as many noble Lords invited us to do in Committee, which would require the Secretary of State to review and report on various aspects of the scheme on an ongoing basis. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for adding his name to it.
Our amendment mirrors Section 14 of the 2008 Act, which some amendments tabled in Committee also sought to replicate. It goes further, however, responding to noble Lords’ calls for maintaining momentum for further scheme expansion, greater transparency over the use of funds as well as reporting on how the principle of additionality has been met. We heard in the debate on the last amendment about the importance of ensuring that this principle flows through to not only the National Lottery Community Fund but any new or additional distributors, were there to be any. To clarify, the National Lottery Community Fund is the only named distributor, and the four independent organisations receive funding from it rather than being named distributors themselves under the Act.
I would also like to draw noble Lords’ attention to the very deliberate phrasing of subsection (7)(d)(i) of our Amendment 7, which refers to any distributor or distributors named in Section 16(1) of the 2008 Act. We have done that, rather than specify the National Lottery Community Fund, so that in the event that a distributor is changed—which Section 24 of the 2008 Act allows the Secretary of State to do as well as allowing them to make consequential amendments to Schedule 3 to ensure that the principle of additionality similarly applies—this would ensure that it is still covered by our Amendment 7.
Amendment 7 will require the Secretary of State to carry out periodic reviews of specified matters, including the operation of the scheme from transfer to reclaim; the effectiveness of tracing and reunification efforts by scheme participants; and any efforts to expand it to include new dormant assets. The amendment will require the results of the review to be laid in a report before Parliament within three years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and every five years thereafter. This is in line with Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton.
In Committee, my noble friend Lady Barran explained that a number of mechanisms for reviewing and reporting on various aspects of the scheme already exist. We agree, however, with the helpful suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that it is sensible to bring these together in one place. Therefore, Amendment 7 also requires the report laid before Parliament to include information about the uses of dormant assets money, including the principle of additionality. This will build on reports already published by Reclaim Fund Ltd and work done by the National Lottery Community Fund and, currently, the Oversight Trust, which oversees the four existing distribution organisations, to assess the scheme’s impact.
I hope that this amendment provides reassurance that the Government are committed to ensuring the ongoing success of the scheme and reflects a number of the helpful suggestions that noble Lords have made in our debates on the Bill hitherto. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I should first say that our amendment, signed by me and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, was an attempt to combine different aspects of previous amendments into a single text. The result is, as noble Lords can see, a fairly lengthy shopping list. The thing about shopping lists is that something is always forgotten; something always falls off the end. That makes their operability in legislation perhaps less than perfect.
We envisaged, in construct, that the amendment would cover what had happened during the relevant period and whether the funding was delivering on the scheme’s priorities. So, we are grateful—I am certainly very grateful—to the Minister for his constructive approach to discussions since taking up his post. I believe that Amendment 7 represents a fair compromise. I think the Minister has said the reports will combine information that was already available from other sources —annual reports et cetera—but also require the Secretary of State to go somewhat further, including by giving information on whether and how the additionality principle has been adhered to. We have heard in earlier debates how important that is.
We hoped to gain more from the Government, including more concrete data on the contribution that funds make to people and communities subject to high levels of deprivation and inequality, but I am sure that there will be further consideration of such issues in the other place, and perhaps in our debates here as well, as this legislation kicks in. I am impressed with the approach the Government have taken, and they have certainly listened to our Committee considerations, taking on board the core of what we are after. Nothing is ever perfect, but this goes a long way in the right direction. While I would have preferred our amendment, I was more than happy to sign up to the Government’s, as it represented real progress in the way we considered the Bill.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, as I am sure the Minister has noted, there were significant contributions about review in the earlier stages of the Bill. It is in that vein that these Benches worked with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on Amendment 8. Like him, I still prefer some of the content of Amendment 8 and wish to try to establish how far the wording of the relevant bits of the amendment put forward by the Government delivers similar things. I appreciate the efforts which have been made, in the review amendments and concerning consultation but, as has already been aired by my noble friends, there are certain things which do not appear necessarily to carry through exactly as expected.
First, can the Government say whether their review can do everything envisaged by Amendment 8? Further, is there appetite to cover everything covered by Amendment 8? The first difference was on timing. The Minister said that they would broadly follow the three-year and five-year timing proposed in Amendment 8, which is one tick. The next big difference is whether the review will cover the worthiness of the expenditure and whether—as in subsection (2)(b) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 8—the expenditure has met the scheme’s underlying objectives, particularly the criteria listed in subsection (2)(c) addressing deprivation, inequality, the capacity of social enterprise and charity, and the principle of additionality. I am particularly interested in these policy criteria because the wording of the consultation introduced by Amendment 3—which we broadly support—nevertheless leaves an open question about what the conclusion of that consultation will be. It could change the direction of policy. One could say that it is acceptable that a public consultation is used to change the direction of policy, but is that what the previous consultation paved the way toward, when it consulted about whether further dormant assets should be incorporated into the scheme, as had been successfully done for bank deposits? It seems that public consent, in essence, was given to the first Act on the basis of additionality and the worthiness of the public goods undertaken with the money. If there was a substantive change from that, the public might be surprised, even if it was the result of a consultation held with many more responses coming from well-funded private enterprises and the “usual suspects”, in the terminology that we have adopted.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the collaborative and pragmatic approach of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in relation to government Amendment 7. I am also grateful for the contributions on that and on Amendment 8 on reviewing and reporting, which would require a review of the performance of an authorised reclaim fund and the Big Lottery Fund, now operating as the National Lottery Community Fund, in administering the scheme. Although I recognise the intention to ensure that the scheme’s success is maintained, bringing such details within the scope of a review would only duplicate processes that already exist.
Both the National Lottery Community Fund and Reclaim Fund Ltd are arm’s-length bodies, of DCMS and Her Majesty’s Treasury respectively. As they are public bodies, robust mechanisms are already in place for the monitoring of both organisations’ delivery against their objectives. These are more frequent than every five years and enable regular assessment of whether they are running effectively and efficiently. Instead, Amendment 7 will ensure that there are periodic reviews of the operation of the scheme from transfer to reclaim and that relevant information from both organisations’ existing reports is included in the report laid before Parliament. This will enable it to track the journey of dormant assets money from participant to beneficiary. This includes how the principle of additionality has been approached, and we can confirm that it is the intention of this part of Amendment 7 to ensure that the principle has been met and that Parliament receives information about how.
As a scheme that is led by industry and backed by the Government, it is appropriate that the scheme’s primary policy objectives—namely, to reunite customers with their money, to ensure voluntary participation and to guarantee full restitution—are similarly the primary focus of the periodic reviews. However, as part of the journey from participant to beneficiary, the scheme’s impact on social and environmental initiatives will, of course, be an important aspect to report on. There have been calls to assess the impact of the scheme here as well as at previous stages of our debates on the Bill. It is absolutely crucial that the funds have a positive impact on social and environmental initiatives. However, Amendment 8 seeks to assess the scheme against more narrow criteria than social and environmental causes. In line with the scheme’s impact to date, it specifically focuses on the benefit to people and communities subject to high levels of deprivation or inequality, and the impact on developing the capacity of social enterprises and charities.
I understand that the overarching purpose of this is to ensure that the scheme has maximum impact on the communities that need it most. However, the Government are clear that the nature of this impact should be subject to a future consultation. That is why we tabled Amendment 3, which would require this to be realised through a public consultation. The Bill must therefore be sufficiently broad to accommodate the outcome of this and future consultations, and to ensure that it is captured by the requirement to report on the scheme’s impact. It may be, for instance, that the public wish to see more of the funds being targeted at environmental initiatives, which would not be satisfactorily covered by the more narrow definition of the scheme’s objectives in Amendment 8.
Amendment 8 also seeks to review the extent to which administrative, investment policy or other changes to the scheme would improve its performance. Government Amendment 7 will ensure that the relevant information from organisations in the ecosystem are presented in the report. In particular, subsection (7)(a) provides that it must include
“information about the uses made by any authorised reclaim fund of its financial resources”.
The amendment should not encroach on the governance arrangements and regulations in place for managing and maintaining an authorised reclaim fund by both Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority.
Finally, Amendment 8 would also require the Secretary of State to consider the views of specific groups when conducting the review. We agree that the review should be informed by a range of views, including those of social enterprises and charities. However, as I said in relation to previous amendments, we believe that prescribing a set list would be too restrictive. The Government’s amendment will instead enable anyone with an interest in the review to make representations and all representations received must be considered by the Secretary of State.
We think that the changes proposed in Amendment 7 strike the balance that noble Lords have called for today and in previous stages. I am again grateful to the noble Lord for his support. I hope that our Amendment 7 demonstrates that we have listened and are committed to transparency and robust reporting. That is why I hope your Lordships’ House will support the amendment and that the noble Lord will be minded not to move Amendment 8.
Baroness Barker
“Capacity of the Oversight Trust
(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the Oversight Trust. (2) The review in subsection (1) must include but is not limited to an assessment of—(a) the capacity of the Oversight Trust to oversee the operations of companies that receive dormant assets money;(b) whether the Oversight Trust has the appropriate resources to fulfil its objective;(c) whether the Oversight Trust has the appropriate powers to fulfil its objective; and(d) whether a duty should be placed on the Oversight Trust to monitor the distribution of dormant assets money, and whether it would have the resources to undertake this duty.(3) The review in subsection (1) must make a recommendation as to whether the Government should bring forward further legislation to improve the capacity and effectiveness of the Oversight Trust.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to undertake a review of the capacity of the Oversight Trust and make a recommendation as to whether further legislation is needed to improve its effectiveness.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, as those who followed our previous deliberations will know, when this scheme was originally set up, the Government introduced an arm’s-length body, the Oversight Trust, to monitor the performance of the distribution bodies. It is a very small entity with a small budget and it does not have a great many staff.
The question we put to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in Committee was whether this small body would be able to deal with a scheme that was going to increase in not only volume but complexity. Having listened to what the noble Baroness said, we on these Benches went off and met the Oversight Trust. We had already spent time reading some of its reports and reviews. Every year, it produces a report on all of the distributors and does a very detailed report on one of the distributors.
It became apparent in our conversation with the Oversight Trust that, although it has done several reviews of the bodies that have grown out of Big Society Capital and so on, it has not yet done a big, deep review of Fair4All Finance. As I said before, that area of work is perhaps the most difficult of all, in that it is about, in short, trying to put loan sharks out of business by making sure that there is affordable finance in poor communities.
It seems to us that understanding the impact or performance of a body such as that is different and less easy in terms of the annual reports and accounts that the trust is used to looking at. In particular, through the youth finance bodies and so on, it is more used to looking at charities and social enterprises. Therefore, we thought it not unreasonable to ask the Government to look at the capacity of that body to ensure proper and deep oversight of a much more complex scheme. Consequently, we have tabled this amendment to raise the issue at this stage. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I want to add just a word or two. My noble friend Lady Barker said that the Oversight Trust had relatively few staff; my understanding is that it has one staff member. I have great respect for the trustees; they are highly capable, totally dedicated people. But resource matters when you are dealing with a complex world. The original oversight body was designed to cope with a situation in which the amount of money in play was relatively small—under £1 billion—and the primary recipients of the end funds were going to be charities and social enterprises. The Charity Commission is involved in the disciplinary process, and there are clear structures that social enterprises have to follow if they are formally to be social enterprises.
We now all accept that the Government consider that the language allows for-profit companies to be recipients of the funds, provided they are mission focused—although nobody can tell me what mission focused looks like. If you are looking at the statutes of a particular company, there is no formal constraint on what is paid to directors in the form of salaries, no definition of acceptable returns to the original investors, and new distributors can be added. We are talking now about a pool of assets of a minimum of £2 billion, and that is just stage 1—it could easily expand to £4 billion, £7 billion, £8 billion or even £10 billion as more and more entities or organisations are captured within the scope of those eligible to provide dormant assets to the fund.
This is an attempt to ask the Government to set up a structured review to make sure that the Oversight Trust has the capacity that it needs, recognising the significant increase in complexity and responsibility. That is not in any way to denigrate anybody who is involved today with the Oversight Trust. I do not know how they do it, frankly, with one staff person. The time has come for expansion of this group, and what we are listening for from the Government is real recognition of the importance of detailed oversight.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, our colleagues on the Lib Dem Benches have made a pretty compelling case here. It is obviously good that we have the Oversight Trust but, with a staff complement of one, anything it does will be light touch. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, makes quite a lot of sense in terms of reviewing arrangements and determining whether further legislation is needed to improve its effectiveness. For that reason, we happily support this amendment.
If the Minister cannot accept the amendment as drafted, perhaps he can explain to the House how the matter is to be kept under review, and how the Oversight Trust can be strengthened to ensure that it does its work, because, clearly, oversight is very important in all of this. We need to have that assurance and guarantee that things are as they should be.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Kramer, have said, Amendment 9 has been tabled with a view to ensuring that the Oversight Trust is appropriately resourced and empowered to monitor the distribution of dormant assets funding. The DCMS and the National Lottery Community Fund have worked closely with a range of partners to ensure that the right levels of accountability and transparency are in place for the organisations that are given the task of distributing dormant assets money in England. We have sought to support their independence while respecting that dormant assets funding is money which comes from the public.
The four spend organisations’ operations are regularly reviewed by the Oversight Trust, which, as the noble Baroness said, is an independent organisation that ensures accountability and transparency in each of the spend organisations’ activities. I should flag that the trust’s reviews are not conducted in-house; it commissions external experts to conduct them independently. The Oversight Trust does not intervene in day-to-day operations, which are of course the responsibility of the organisations’ boards; rather, its aim is to ensure that each remains true to its objectives, which involves having oversight of the general operations of the spend organisations, as referred to in subsection (2)(a) of the new clause proposed in the amendment. In particular, the Oversight Trust is required to ensure that the four organisations are well governed and that their strategic plans and budgets are in accordance with their objects; and to review their achievement of social impact and transparency of financial and impact reporting.
Those powers are formalised in legally binding governance contracts between the Oversight Trust and each organisation. These contracts empower the Oversight Trust, for example, to remove directors in the case of significant mismanagement; to approve any changes to remuneration policies; and to be involved in the process of appointing new chairpersons, including ratifying their formal appointment. The contracts set out the key processes to enable the Oversight Trust to fulfil these responsibilities, and the trust may make reasonable requests from each spend organisation, in addition to those set out in the governance arrangements, if necessary, to help it meet its obligations.
The Oversight Trust receives quarterly updates, conducts annual deep dives and publishes quadrennial reviews on each organisation, which is required to co-operate to ensure that it can perform its duties effectively. This includes a commitment to participate with the independent review panel and to provide any information and assistance that may be necessary. We therefore do not believe it would be necessary or appropriate to provide the Oversight Trust with further powers in legislation for it to perform its current mandate effectively.
Access to up to £500,000 per annum from the English portion ensures that it can draw on sufficient resources to fulfil these important objectives. We are confident that this enables the Oversight Trust to meet its objectives, but we continue to keep that under review. Last year the Oversight Trust published its first quadrennial review, which focused on Big Society Capital, with the review of Access following in June this year. The next review, which will be of Fair4All Finance, is due next year.
I am very glad that the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to meet the Oversight Trust. Since Committee, my noble friend Lady Barran has met the trust as well, to press the importance of in-depth quantitative impact data. The trust has been working with the four organisations that it oversees on this issue, including through its annual governance review meetings. The trust provides robust governance, transparency and accountability over the four organisations’ use of dormant assets funding in England. As ever, though, we are mindful of our commitment to consult widely and with an open mind about the best social or environmental uses of this money.
When the Government consider the outcome of this consultation, we will also need to determine the best approach to ensuring continued good governance over the scheme. This could include asking the Oversight Trust to consider expanding its role to oversee any additional bodies if necessary and appropriate. If so, we would review whether the trust would need additional resources to fulfil a broader remit. It is worth noting that the trust would not be involved in decisions around what, if any, new distributing bodies may be chosen in England.
As it is too early to pre-empt the outcome of that assessment and, given that the Oversight Trust is independent and not an arm’s-length body, I hope the noble Baronesses will agree that it would be inappropriate in the Bill to mandate its role in the way that the amendment suggests. However, we have included a requirement to report on the uses of dormant assets funding as part of the Government’s Amendment 7. The National Lottery Community Fund will also remain responsible for ensuring that funds are distributed in line with legislation. We hope that this, alongside our record to date in ensuring that the distribution of funds is appropriately monitored, will provide the noble Baronesses with reassurance that this is an area that we will continue to take very seriously.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
While the Minister is on his feet, could he tell me with a straight face whether he thinks that £500,000 a year is sufficient for the wide range of responsibilities that he just described? He might wish to talk to some of his colleagues who work in the world of consultancy.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We do; we keep it under review and, if the oversight trust took on a broader role, would review whether it would need additional resources. For the reasons I have set out, we cannot accept Amendment 9, and I hope the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw it.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full answer. It will come as no surprise to him that we do not intend to seek to put the amendment in the Bill, but the issues we have raised have a great deal of merit.
When we met Sir Stuart Etherington, the chair of the oversight trust, he set out clearly to us, as the Minister just has, exactly what the responsibilities of the trust are and how it goes about discharging them. He said that, although it has a responsibility to look at governance and management arrangements that impact on reporting, and has the power to remove directors and the chair, the oversight trust regards that as being a nuclear option—it would have to be something rather major for it to do that. By the time it got to that stage, there would already have been a significant scandal. That is what we are worried about with this whole scheme, and have been since the very beginning, because there are so many loopholes.
However, I hear what the Minister says about this being kept under review, alongside the periodic review of the whole scheme. With that assurance, I am quite happy to withdraw the amendment.
COP 26
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, in line with the arrangements, the Statement made in the Commons yesterday is not repeated by the Leader, but I think most Members will have heard what the Prime Minister had to say in his enthusiasm for the agreement.
The world came together in Glasgow for what was the most important summit the UK has ever hosted. Future generations will look back on COP 26 as a time when we either met the moment or missed the opportunity. We add our thanks to all those involved in the organisation and planning of the summit—and to the residents of Glasgow, who, despite the disruption, welcomed visitors from all over the world into their city and their homes.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
There seems to be some disruption; I do not know whether we are being haunted. If the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, could mute, that might be helpful—just on this occasion, I hasten to add.
This is the decisive decade for tackling the climate emergency. Although we better understand the seriousness of the issue, the real threat to progress is no longer denial but delay.
For film fans—bear with me on this—when Rick said the immortal words to Ilsa in “Casablanca”, “We’ll always have Paris”, he could not have imagined how apt they would be, 80 years later. The Paris summit in 2015 built an international alliance to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. The Prime Minister says in the Statement that COP 26 succeeded not just in keeping that 1.5 degrees target alive but in going further. I hope and want his optimism to be justified, but it feels more like the 1.5 degrees target is on life support. Meeting it would mean halving global emissions by 2030. The challenge for COP 26—so that we would always have Paris—was to close the gap between that aspiration and the reality of the pledges made. If Rick and Ilsa could do it, so can we. But did we?
We have to be honest about what has been achieved. Progress has been modest. We saw encouraging agreements on methane, deforestation, and the sales of petrol and diesel cars. Too often, however, the real delivery that will make a difference will come too late. According to the Climate Action Tracker, the pledges made at Glasgow for 2030, even if fully implemented, represent less than 25% of the ambition required. Rather than limiting warming to 1.5 degrees, we are now on track for a devastating 2.4 degrees rise. That is not just a number: it really matters. It could lead to billions of people facing extreme heatwaves, millions forced to leave their homes, and increased threats to both the natural wonders of the world and overall security. The Prime Minister kicked off the conference by saying that it was “one minute to midnight” on the doomsday clock. Can the Leader tell the House what time it is now, and whether we will still have Paris?
For years, coal has been the elephant in the room at these summits, so having an explicit reference in the agreement for the first time is really important. Who could not have been moved by Alok Sharma’s emotional reaction to that last-minute change to “phase down”? That really illustrates that hopes were cruelly dashed, despite the Prime Minister’s approval in the Statement. The raw emotion that we saw from Alok Sharma was also palpable among the Pacific Islanders. For many, climate change is genuinely existential, so even the announcement that 190 countries and organisations had agreed a timetable to end the use of coal does not bear scrutiny. Of those 190, only 46 were actually countries, of which 23 were new signatories and 10 do not even use coal. It is a coalition that includes NatWest and the national grid but not China, the United States or India.
There then came climate finance. It is a moral plight on developing nations that the 2009 commitment to provide $100 billion a year to emerging economies still has not been delivered; it will not be until 2023. That failure to deliver is self-defeating because it damages trust and prevents a high-ambition international coalition being built.
With his now typical overexuberance, the Prime Minister lauded the net-zero commitments made. Yet Saudi Arabia, for example, is still increasing oil production, despite its 2060 net-zero claim, and Australia will not even legislate for its 2050 net-zero target. We all know the importance of trade deals, but will the Leader explain why the Government dropped the Paris temperature commitment from the trade deal that we now have with Australia?
I had hoped that the Statement would refer to Thérèse Coffey’s welcome boast at the summit of the UK being
“the first country to legally require pension trustees to assess and publish the financial risks from climate change”.
I am sorry that it was not in the Statement, but the Leader of the House may recall that it was a Labour-led amendment in your Lordships’ House, supported across this House, that secured that historic commitment. We are pleased that we were able to be helpful, so that the Government could boast about that achievement at COP.
For the next 12 months, we have the COP presidency, and that gives us a key leadership responsibility. But the Government’s ability to step up and deliver is called into question by the Climate Change Committee’s recent report to Parliament, which said that the Government had been
“too slow to follow its climate promises with delivery”.
We cannot just put climate policy in a separate box: all government policies need to be linked to climate commitments, including trade deals. Yet Rishi Sunak’s Budget failed to mention climate change; it did not secure the necessary green investment, but it did give a tax break for domestic flights. That we were the only G7 country to cut overseas aid when seeking international co-operation on climate clearly damaged trust at COP.
When we wanted to focus on the summit issues and the climate emergency, many of us found it very difficult to watch the Prime Minister seeking to assure the world’s media that the UK was not corrupt, following his political shenanigans away from the summit. It was not exactly Mr Johnson’s finest hour.
Looking forward, I hope that the Leader is able to update us today on how Ministers can get a grip, reorder their priorities and invest in the green recovery. Can she give us an assurance that the net-zero test will be applied to all future decisions? Given what was said at COP 26, what is the Government’s renewed plan for phasing out fossil fuels, including rewriting the planning framework to rule out coal and say no to the Cambo oil field?
In conclusion, there was some welcome progress at COP 26 but it could have, and should have, achieved far more. Real action, not more rhetoric, must now follow, because the world just cannot wait any longer.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Prime Minister that those who thought that COP 26 would be a failure have been proved wrong. There were agreements on forests, methane, cars and finance, and there is undoubtedly some momentum among Governments and the private sector to move more quickly than previously.
Alok Sharma clearly worked extremely hard to achieve even more substantive progress, and he and his team deserve our thanks for all their efforts. By contrast, the Prime Minister seems to have played no concerted role at any point over the last two years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, his second visit to COP seemed to consist only of a press conference dominated by the question of whether the UK, under his watch, is now a corrupt country.
The Statement itself demonstrates the Prime Minister’s addiction to hyperbole. The world, he says, is “calling time on coal.” Really? When is that time? The declaration on coal is positive but, as it stands, is consistent with India and China continuing to use very large amounts of coal for decades ahead, decades which the world simply does not have. The Prime Minister says, we have
“ticked our boxes on cars, cash and trees.”
I fear that, for him, that is exactly what we have done: enough to enable him to claim that a success has been achieved, with no recognition that the agreements in these areas, although very welcome, are partial and will need continuing global pressure to achieve their stated goals.
As the dust settles on the conference, the key questions in every sector contributing to climate change are, “How do we build on the progress of COP 26?” and, “What role can the UK play?” I will concentrate on just three areas: finance, China, and the UK’s own carbon reduction strategy.
On finance, it is important that companies set targets and keep to them and that we do not facilitate the funding of climate-threatening activities. On the former, can the noble Baroness confirm what carbon reduction plans the UK will require companies listed in the UK to set in future, and what sanctions there will be to ensure that they are fulfilled? Does she agree that choking off finance for new fossil fuel exploration and development is potentially crucial? If so, will the Government commit to banning new stock exchange listings of fossil fuel companies and funds? Will the Government also press for a change in the capital adequacy rules, so that they reflect the climate change risks attached to lending by banks to fossil fuel companies? Does she accept that this could in effect price out the viability of such loans in future?
On China, the Prime Minister has expressed his frustration that they did not make further commitments at COP 26. He rightly accepts that he is not in a position to tell President Xi what to do, but there seems to have been a retreat in the diplomatic resources and effort put into climate change diplomacy, not just with China but globally. China’s stock has been weakened in the eyes of the island states, and much of the developing world, by their unwillingness to move more quickly. Surely this is something we should be tapping into via our Diplomatic Service to encourage those countries to put pressure on China, which in the past has so assiduously sought their votes at the UN and in other international bodies. Will the diplomatic resources devoted to climate change be increased to allow this to happen?
Domestically, the Government’s policy, despite the targets, is characterised by a lack of consistency and ambition. Will the Government now make it clear that they oppose any further coal or oil extraction in this country? Will they up their game on insulating homes and installing heat pumps? Will they give real impetus to developing working carbon capture and storage schemes, which have been promised for so long but not delivered? Will they stop doing counterproductive things, such as the reduction in air passenger duty?
The Prime Minister, quoting Aristotle in his Statement, says that
“virtue comes ... from habit and practice”
and implies that he favours virtue, at least in our approach to climate change. Will he therefore heed his own, or rather Aristotle’s, words, cut out the hyperbole and more assiduously practise what he preaches?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. I am slightly disappointed, although, to be fair, the noble Baroness did highlight that much progress had been made. I think we have been very clear that we did not reach all the targets that we wanted to reach, but it is a misrepresentation of COP to say that we did not make some significant progress. The Glasgow climate pact was a historic agreement, the gap in ambition has narrowed and we now have net-zero commitments for over 90% of the world’s economy, up from just 30% two years ago.
COP has kept 1.5 degrees alive. I completely accept the noble Baroness’s point that we did not get as far as we wanted, but the combination of net-zero targets, enhanced 2030 emission-reduction commitments and agreed action in key sectors, all underpinned by the rules, systems and support agreed in Glasgow, will significantly reduce emissions by 2030 and can put the world on track for below two degrees. I totally accept, as does the Prime Minister, and indeed Alok Sharma, that there now needs to be a concerted effort and delivery by all countries. We are not on track for 1.5 degrees at the moment, but that is one reason why COP 26 agreed that countries will return next year with stronger emission reduction targets for 2030, so that we can keep the momentum going and try to get back on track.
So countries have agreed to return next year with their new targets. This will be combined with a yearly political round table to consider a global progress report and a leaders’ summit. The pact creates a new UN programme to work with countries to scale up their emission reduction targets, and these will report back next year. Following this COP, a yearly report from the UNFCCC, which was previously conducted every five years, will give a clearer picture of countries’ latest targets and how they are going to close the emissions gap. The noble Lord talked, for instance, about pressure on China. All these actions are aimed at shining the spotlight on all countries and globally, and helping us continue to move forward.
One thing that neither the noble Baroness nor the noble Lord mentioned, but which it is important to mention, is that the Paris rulebook—the guidelines on how the Paris Agreement is to be delivered—was completed after six years of discussion. These guidelines are an important step forward in transparency and holding countries to account for their targets.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord rightly talked about coal. We have been quite clear that it was disappointing that some countries wanted softer language than perhaps we would have liked. However, I still maintain that this was the first time that a pact has mentioned coal power and fossil fuels. They were referenced in a COP text and were agreed by all the countries involved. Some 65 countries have now committed to phasing out coal, including four of the world’s top 20 coal power-generating countries: South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam and Poland. All major coal-financing countries have committed to end international coal finance by the end of 2021. We also saw a significant commitment of the G20 countries in that regard, which included China, the USA and India, which can have an immediate impact in the Asia-Pacific region.
The noble Lord asked about the Chancellor’s announcement. He set out plans for the UK to be the world’s first net-zero aligned financial centre, with new requirements for UK financial institutions and listed companies to publish net-zero transition plans that detail how they will adapt and decarbonise as the UK moves towards a net-zero economy by 2050, and further work and publications will come on that side of things.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness rightly mentioned the $100 billion climate finance target. Again, we have said that we deeply regret the fact that this target was not met in 2020 as originally committed to, but the plan does show that the goal will be met by 2023 at the latest and continues on a rising trajectory to 2025. We are increasingly hopeful of meeting, or coming close to meeting, the goal by 2022, although I accept that that is obviously still two years out. It has been important that 95% of the major developed country climate finance providers have come forward during COP with increased multi-year climate finance commitments, with some doubling or even quadrupling their climate finance.
We welcome Australia’s commitment to net zero by 2050. I can assure the noble Baroness that our trade deal with Australia will include a substantive chapter on climate change, which reaffirms our joint commitment to upholding our obligations under the Paris Agreement, including limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. That goes further than many previous trade agreements.
Domestic aviation, which both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned, accounts for less than 1% of the UK’s total emissions in 2019. We have announced, alongside the announcements in the Budget, a new ultra-long-haul ban to align more closely with our environmental objectives. We are also investing £180 million in a competition to support the development of plants for sustainable aviation fuel in the UK.
The noble Baroness asked about the Cambo field. That proposal is being scrutinised by independent regulators, and no decision has yet been taken, but the UK was the first G7 country to agree a landmark deal to support the oil and gas industry’s transition to clean green energy by 2050 while supporting 40,000 jobs. The reason we were able to bring people together and take these steps forward is that we are a world leader in this area. We are leading by example and we will continue to lead by example. While we did not achieve everything that we wanted at COP, it has been a major step forward for the world.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, the oceans play a unique role in regulating our climate. Unless we take unprecedented action to restore and protect the oceans, none of the shared goals announced at COP can be met. Can my noble friend give an indication of the progress made at COP 26 on ensuring that oceans play a stronger role than they are currently able to play in regulating our climate? It is essential.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend. The UK presidency marked Ocean Action Day at COP, championing a call for action to protect and restore ocean health and resilience. For instance, more than 100 countries have now signed up to protect at least 30% of the global ocean by 2030. My noble friend Lord Goldsmith is obviously very heavily involved in this work and will continue to lead international action in this area.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I was surprised that the Prime Minister rather bravely referred to Aristotelian virtue in the Statement. Four essential characteristics of virtue, according to Aristotle, are prudence, temperance, courage and justice. There is no provision in the Glasgow agreement for loss and damage payments—reparations for the fact that the global south is already suffering deadly horrendous damage because of the emissions of the global north. The Statement says that Alok Sharma will push countries to go further. Will the UK lead in putting in funds for loss and damage, as Scotland has already done, reflecting the fact that the most vulnerable nations made it very clear at COP that they expect this to be fully sorted out at Sharm el-Sheikh?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I am surprised that the noble Baroness did not realise that this was, in fact, the first COP decision that included a position on loss and damage, which is a recognition of how seriously developed countries are taking their obligations. The Glasgow dialogue was launched better to co-ordinate financial support for extreme impacts, and it agreed that there would be a dialogue between parties, relevant organisations and stakeholders to discuss the arrangements for funding activities to avert, minimise and address loss and damage. We also established the functions of the Santiago network, which will provide technical assistance to developing countries to address loss and damage. So progress was most certainly made.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the tremendous commitment and energy given to COP 26. My first global environment conference was on saving the ozone layer with Margaret Thatcher in 1988, which was British science-based. It was a global movement, with the Montreal treaty, business getting involved and a massive public campaign. Well, how much has happened. My real delight is that it is not only nations but regions and communities that will deliver these commitments. I was there to represent the Humber region, the greatest provider of carbon in the country, and it is going net zero, with a major wind farm, major investment in hydrogen and major investment in carbon capture. This is a community—local authorities and business leaders—with political support, taking action into its hands. We are none of spectators; we are all participants. If the Minister can find her way to Hull, I would very much like to introduce her to these remarkable leaders.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend. She is absolutely right. So many people played such an important part in COP 26. It was attended by 120 world leaders. There were over 38,000 delegates from 194 countries. We brought together thousands of delegates from civil society, indigenous peoples, business, youth groups and women’s groups—all coming together with a common goal. I would be delighted to visit Hull if she would like to arrange it.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I was very pleased to hear in the Prime Minister’s Statement that, as I understand it, Alok Sharma will continue his full-time role as president of COP 26 until Egypt next year. I congratulate him on what he achieved this time.
Two themes that came out in COP 26 were methane and carbon sequestration. Going from the macro to the micro, I suggest two things that the Government could easily do, almost immediately, to help in those areas. In North Sea gas flaring, we are still the laggard in comparison with other North Sea oil and gas producers. We allow flaring. The Oil and Gas Authority recently released a new strategy which said that it would stop flaring, except in exceptional circumstances, by 2030. Why do we not stop it immediately?
With carbon sequestration, peatlands are one of the major areas of carbon storage and the UK has some of the largest areas in the globe. Yet we still allow peat extraction for gardening and other areas, and we allow it to be sold as a gardening accessory. We can stop this almost immediately. It is the Government’s intention to do so, so why do we not do both those things now?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I am happy to raise the noble Lord’s points with colleagues and we will continue to look at ways to meet our obligations. The noble Lord rightly talked about methane emissions. More than 100 countries, responsible for just under half of all methane emissions, joined the global methane pledge to cut them by 30% by 2030. That includes six of the top 10 methane emitters—the US, Brazil, the EU, Indonesia, Pakistan and Argentina—and the noble Lord will be interested to know that, according to the global methane assessment, action on methane can avoid up to 0.3 degrees centigrade of warming by 2040. He is absolutely right that we need actions at all levels to ensure that we continue working towards this goal.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
During last week’s questions on the COP Statement, I asked the Minister how the funding was progressing towards raising that £100 billion annually from developed countries to distribute to less developed and developing countries, to help reduce emissions and to combat and adapt to climate change. Can she now update the House on the final climate finance contributions from the major economies, and can the Government publish a list documenting the amounts from each contributor?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. I knew that he would probably ask me this question, so I have an answer for him about the United States, which he asked about last week. It intends by 2024 to further double its annual public climate finance to developing countries to around £11.4 billion, including around £3 billion to support adaptation efforts. He might be pleased to know that we have indeed published such a document, COP26 Presidency Compilation of 2021-2025 Climate Finance Commitments, which lists the commitments made in this area and which he might be interested to read.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I would like to acknowledge the unexpected progress that was made at COP, for example on rainforests, which I do not think anybody has mentioned. On the move to change the energy mix, I think it is at least as important for the Government that they keep the lights on as it is to take measures to save the planet. In that context, does my noble friend agree that the move to intermittent renewables needs to be balanced, and indeed balanced now, by a substantial investment in the British nuclear industry, another source of zero-carbon energy? Does she further agree that the neglect of the nuclear industry since the mid-90s has been a disgrace?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I am sure my noble friend is aware that we have a Bill in the House of Commons looking at this area which will be coming to your Lordships’ House soon so we can discuss these issues. We are certainly looking to reinvigorate that sector. I will also just say that last year was the first year in which renewables were the primary source of the UK’s electricity and we have quadrupled the percentage of our electricity that comes from renewables but, of course, we need a mix in order to make sure that we have security of supply.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, do the Government accept that to some extent global climate change and global heating and biodiversity loss are two sides of the same coin? In furthering their work after COP 26, will the Government do more to include the effects on biodiversity loss of the policies they are promoting?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I completely agree with the noble Viscount. That is why we were so pleased, for instance, with the 140 leaders representing over 90% of the world’s forests pledging to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030. We also had 45 nations pledge action and investment to protect nature and to shift to more sustainable ways of farming and, as I mentioned earlier, there was action on the global ocean. The noble Viscount is absolutely right, and that is why we put this front and centre and included it in COP in a way that had not happened before. My colleague, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, is leading this: he is passionate about it and will continue to talk to global colleagues in order to keep this agenda going forward.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement says that we have seen countries that really should know better dragging their heels on their Paris commitments. The Minister will be aware that the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance has launched, led by Denmark and Costa Rica and also involving the states of California and Quebec. Given that we are committed to 1.5 and one of the commitments of the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance is 1.5, meeting Paris commitments, are we not dragging our heels by not signing up to this alliance?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
No. We have been central to action in this area. For instance, we were central to setting up the Powering Past Coal Alliance which now has 165 members, including national and subnational Governments, businesses and organisations. We will obviously continue to look at this area but we are certainly leading the way. In fact, the transition is already under way. In OECD countries, the share of coal in power generation has fallen from a peak of 40% in 1990 to a low of 23% in 2019. As we have said, although perhaps we had watered-down language, as we have all accepted, the end of coal is in sight, and that is what we want to continue to work to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
If there are no more questions we will move on to next Business.
Dementia: Fuelling the Moonshot
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Greengross
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recommendations in the report by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Dementia Fuelling the Moonshot, published on 8 September. (Dinner break business, 1 hour)
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, since 2015 dementia has been the leading cause of death in the UK, and there are currently 850,000 people who are living with the condition in this country. Of course, there are many different types of dementia, which all have very different symptoms and progress at different rates. We know that in the coming years the number of people living with some form of dementia is projected to increase significantly. This will place an even greater strain on our health and care system.
Research into dementia is critical. It may help prevent the occurrence of these conditions and will certainly allow people living with them a better quality of life. Dementia does not just affect those who have the condition; it also has a profound impact on family, carers and loved ones. Many of us in this Chamber will have experienced seeing someone we care about getting dementia and wanting to do anything we could to ease the suffering for them and those who support them. I declare my interest in the register as chief executive of the International Longevity Centre UK, which is currently working on a project analysing the impact of dementia on the high street and the retail sector. The growing number of people living with dementia will impact on the whole of society and have a significant economic impact as well.
In the 2019 general election, the Conservative Party made a commitment to bringing forward a dementia moonshot and
“doubling research funding into dementia”
over the next decade. Figures from the National Institute for Health Research show that this would increase government investment in dementia research from £83 million a year to £166 million, although I gather the Government’s figures differ from this. I am sure the Minister will respond on this point.
The Government have confirmed on many occasions that they intend to uphold the promise to double dementia research funding over the next decade. However, to date, they have announced no details of this. In early 2021, the All-Party Group on Dementia, which I co- chair with Debbie Abrahams MP, held an inquiry into the state of dementia research in the UK and investigated how this funding could best be used to support work in this field. The inquiry found that funding for dementia research was lower than that for other medical conditions; for example, funding was three times higher for cancer research than for dementia. However, the UK has to date been a world leader in dementia research, with only the United States spending more on research into these conditions.
The pandemic has taken a serious toll on dementia research, with many programmes having to be paused or even abandoned during 2020. One serious issue has been the reliance on charity funding, which in this country makes up 51% of dementia research funding. As we know, the economic conditions we now face due to the pandemic have considerably reduced charities’ ability to fundraise. The other factor has been the impact of Covid-19 on people already living with dementia. In the first 12 months of the pandemic, it is believed that 34,000 people who died of Covid-19 also had some form of dementia. One area that needs greater research is the impact of Covid-19 on those with dementia, as there is some evidence that the symptoms differed in Covid-19 patients who did not have dementia, and the Covid-19 mortality rate for those with dementia was considerably higher. Due to the need for social distancing to stop the spread of the disease, much of this or other ongoing dementia research could not take place.
There is evidence that there are at least 12 modifiable risks that can help reduce dementia. While research has shown that there are actions we can take individually and as a population to prevent some forms of dementia, very little is being done in the way of public education and awareness.
The other area of research that surveys show has strong public support is improving early detection. Some medications available on the market can slow the progress of some dementias, at least for a small amount of time, and early detection provides the best opportunity for these treatments to work. There is also some evidence that social prescribing, particularly exposure to art and music—particularly music, I think—can play a positive role in delaying the progress, or improving the quality of life, for those who have received an early diagnosis of dementia.
A few years ago, I had the privilege of going to an orchestral performance conducted by a gentleman who had had dementia for over 20 years. He had not been able to speak for many years, yet he often hummed tunes, and a group of music students were able to transcribe his music and perform it in a big concert hall. Seeing this man with dementia come alive, as he conducted the orchestra playing his music, was a very moving experience for me and taught me the importance of social prescribing. This is simply one area where we can learn so much more.
One of the concerning findings of this inquiry was the lack of evidence-based care approaches when supporting people with dementia. The Wellbeing and Health for People Living with Dementia project, funded by the National Institute for Health Research, starkly demonstrated this lack of evidence-based care. In a review of 170 training manuals for person-centred care in dementia, researchers found that only four provided evidence that methods had worked when tested in a research setting.
The all-party report made a number of important recommendations, including: that a priority for new dementia research funding should include investment in novel methods for early diagnosis, such as blood and other biomarkers; confirm appropriate funding for the UK Dementia Research Institute for at least the next 10 years; and build on the success of the multidisciplinary approach of the Alzheimer’s Society’s centres of excellence model and further expand this by introducing three new centres that will focus on some of the biggest challenges in dementia research. It also recommended that the Government should establish a specific fund of £40 million to support both clinical and pre-clinical postdoctoral research positions and talent retention in dementia research, and that the Government should develop a Longitude Prize for dementia, which would support the development of novel technologies. It also recommended that Join Dementia Research become an opt-out model and that data gaps in this programme should be addressed by integrating it with electronic patient records. Lastly, it recommended that the new Office for Health Promotion should launch public information campaigns which would explain how the public can take steps to reduce their dementia risk.
Finally, I acknowledge the Government’s recent announcement that they will spend £95 million on the delivery of their Life Sciences Vision and £2.3 billion to transform NHS diagnostic services. Can the Minister please clarify how this funding will benefit those people living with dementia and the dementia research community as a whole?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on securing this important debate and on all the work that she does as one of the co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Dementia.
I welcome the APPG’s report into the current state of dementia research in the UK, in which evidence was taken from world-leading researchers and academics, research institutions, charities, participants in research and people affected by dementia. In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has this evening characterised the main features of the report and the main recommendations, on which all Members right across this House demand action from the Government.
As the noble Baroness has said, at the 2019 general election the Conservative Party set out its plan to implement a “dementia moonshot” that would double government funding for dementia research by over £800 million, increasing annual funding from £83 million to £166 million a year over the next decade. Sadly and unfortunately, that funding has not yet been realised. When will that funding be provided?
I come from Northern Ireland, where the situation is much worse. In fact, we require assistance, funding and staff resources for the actual diagnosis of dementia. I reside in a health and social services trust area where the figures for dementia, for the actual diagnosis and those waiting a diagnosis, are much greater than in other parts of Northern Ireland. That trust resides 23 miles south of Belfast.
I am only too well aware of the personal impact of dementia on people’s lives. I had two political colleagues who passed away last year with dementia. Up until the onset of their illness, they lived full and active lives, serving their constituents and making a contribution to society, underpinned by the principles of social justice. Sadly, they were unable to enjoy the fruits of retirement because they began to suffer from memory loss, from body depletion and many other physical issues.
I learnt through the news last week that a young lady from Derry, in her mid-50s, who has dementia but could be cared for at home is unable to come home because of the problems of insufficient care packages and funding for them. This is exacerbated by the Covid pandemic. Insufficient care packages, insufficient funding dedicated to them, combined with all the problems of Covid has led to a very serious situation for dementia sufferers.
In that respect, the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is very apt at this particular time and needs to be acted upon by the Government. The need for the investment of money and medical nursing staff in the Covid pandemic has delayed the deployment of resources in evidence-based research for dementia care. The APPG’s report Fuelling the Moonshot sets out the current issues facing the dementia research sector in the UK. It highlights examples of where the UK is leading the way in research, and highlights the areas where the promised funding could best be used to cement its place as a world leader in dementia research. The report also refers to the many areas that have experienced difficulties because of the pandemic, including early career researchers, and recommends how they could be supported. I am very pleased to say that Fuelling the Moonshot makes several other recommendations on how biomedical care and prevention research can be supported by the moonshot funding, and sets out how participation in research can be encouraged.
Tonight, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and your Lordships’ House, I would urge the Minister and the Government to bring forward that important funding as quickly as possible, with a timeframe for how the funding will be realised, for how it will be implemented and the schemes and programmes in which it will be implemented. When will that happen? Could the Minister outline the specifics in terms of dates for the provision of funding and staff for care, treatment and research? Clarity needs to be provided on how the funding will benefit those living with dementia and the dementia research community.
There are various areas of research where work is required, such as prevention research, biomedical research, early detection and diagnosis, and care research and technology. It is also important for the Government, along with the NHS and the voluntary organisations, to promote the value and benefit of participation in research.
In that respect, I agree with the recommendation that the National Institute for Health Research, the Government and the NHS should work together to drive up participation in dementia research by making JDR—Join Dementia Research—an opt-out service for new dementia patients. I know from the work of Dementia NI that they have four main aims: to challenge the stigma of having a diagnosis by raising awareness about dementia; to promote the right for people living with dementia to be involved in decisions that affect their lives; to provide training, education and awareness to organisations and the public on how to best support people living with dementia; and to support people living with dementia to raise awareness of dementia in their own right. Many of those aims chime with the report just published and—shall we say?—unveiled tonight by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross.
It is not sufficient to congratulate the noble Baroness; the Government should recognise and acknowledge that action will be taken in this important area. Obviously, there are difficulties, compounded by Covid and the need for essential care packages, but let us hope that there is a resolution in sight. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that he and his ministerial colleagues can find the resources to fulfil these recommendations and their own manifesto commitments.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on securing this important debate, and to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Dementia on the publication in September of the very powerful report Fuelling the Moonshot. I also thank Alzheimer’s UK and the UK Dementia Research Institute for their briefings. It is especially good to see the research side and the community-facing side coming together to work. I have seen this in the arthritis field, and there are real benefits it can bring.
There is nothing to beat evidence-based care, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has already said. She noted that 850,000 people are living with dementia, and that the number will increase as we in the baby-boomer generation come to our later years. Some 11% of deaths in 2020 were from Alzheimer’s and dementia. But past data on the number of dementia deaths is difficult to ascertain. My family knows about this from our own experience. In my father, a broadcaster and later an MP 40 years ago, who died over a decade ago, we saw the consummate communicator that he was change as vascular dementia took over. When he finally went into hospital and died, it said “cancer” on the death certificate. My stepmother had to ask for “dementia” to be added. His last years were blighted by dementia, but it appeared then that it was not recognised. It was added—although in a different-coloured pen, which seems bizarre. Even that caused problems later, with people querying why a cause of death had been added in a different colour. So it is good that it is now routinely listed on death certificates, and I thank my stepmother and those like her who, over the years, have fought for this to happen.
It is shocking that dementia research has been funded so poorly compared with many more “attractive” medical issues, given the high number of people who have it. But it is not just an issue of research; the current crisis in social care speaks volumes about the way dementia and elder care are funded by the state, and how they are misunderstood or even ignored by too many of the public. Today’s debate is about finding that elusive cure, and this report is excellent for setting out a road map for the Government to help fund, facilitate and encourage.
The words in the Tory manifesto, already mentioned by other noble Lords, are absolutely clear and set out in the moonshot report. The Conservative Party’s 2019 election manifesto made a commitment to save millions of people and their families from suffering the agony of a slow decline due to dementia. The party promised that it would make
“finding a cure one of our Government’s biggest collective priorities—one of the ‘grand challenges’ that will define our future … This will include doubling research funding into dementia and speeding up trials for new treatments.”
The party also committed to investing
“more than £1.6 billion … into research over the next decade to find a cure for dementia under a Conservative majority government”,
which would provide the
“largest boost to dementia research ever in the UK … double current funding levels”
and set
“Britain’s finest scientists to work on a ‘Dementia Moonshot’”.
These are fine words, but worryingly, in the Budget, Rishi Sunak announced a two-year delay to the funding of the £22 billion “sciences superpower”. Can the Minister say if this includes a delay to the £1.6 billion promised for dementia research in the manifesto? The wording in that Tory manifesto is unequivocal: it is
“one of our Government’s biggest collective priorities … that will define our future”—
except that if it is delayed, it is not. If there are concerns about it being included in the delay, I hope the Minister will undertake to put pressure on the Chancellor to ensure that dementia research is not part of this delay.
The recommendations in the report set out a number of key methods for achieving the moonshot, and I want to address one or two of them. The first is the
“novel methods for early diagnosis, such as blood and other biomarkers”.
It is noticeable that other diseases have benefited from such research. For example, 30 years ago someone with suspected coeliac disease could be diagnosed only by going into hospital and having a very uncomfortable gastroscopy procedure. Now, a simple blood test tells your GP if you have the markers, so you can then be referred speedily to a gastroenterologist. Other autoimmune diseases have benefited from similar ground-breaking research. Inflammation markers found through regular blood tests are now commonplace; I have blood tests monthly to monitor mine. There are many other markers that provide early diagnosis for other diseases, but not yet for dementia. Many other biomedical and translational research for other diseases, notably cancer, have also had access to long-term government planned funding, but not yet dementia.
For me, the most exciting moonshot report recommendations are about creating more centres of excellence and ensuring that anyone newly diagnosed gets the support they need at the start of their journey. The practical multidisciplinary approach is already using technology to help people to live well with their dementia. Professor David Sharp, the director of the DRI Care Research & Technology centre at Imperial College, is using technology in a pilot to help people living with dementia avoid hospitalisation. It is shocking that 25% of hospital beds are currently taken up by people living with dementia. These new technologies can monitor people in their homes and enable the early identification of risks such as sleep disturbance, incontinence, or infections. They know that this works. The early detection of these risks could enable people with dementia to live at home safely for longer. Access to that funding would allow the trials to happen on a larger scale, and then perhaps become commonplace. There is another benefit too: it will reduce the costs to and pressures on our hospitals.
I move now to the workforce to deliver the moonshot. The fourth recommendation in the report is
“to establish a specific fund of £40m to support both clinical and preclinical postdoctoral research positions”.
These are vital if talent is to be attracted and retained in dementia research. Can I ask the Minister if this is also part of the manifesto promise and if it, too, might be delayed? Dementia has in the past been a poor relation, and it becomes harder to attract clinical postdoctoral research students. If there is no money, there are no students, and no students means no future research scientists and professors, and without a long term well-funded scheme it will not get the momentum that it so badly needs.
There is a particular importance in attracting talent from abroad, which our universities and research establishments have thrived on for many years. On the power of research funding, the report says:
“The creation of institutions like the UK Dementia Research Institute has attracted world-leading talent to the UK from across the globe.”
It says that the director of the UK DRI, Professor Bart De Strooper, estimates
“that around a third of its research Group Leaders have come from overseas”,
and that he
“himself moved to the UK to lead”
the work here,
“being impressed by the UK’s research infrastructure and ambition to be a world leader in the field.”
However, we know that, at present, it is harder to attract first-class talent from abroad, so a scheme such as this, with government support, would be very beneficial.
For the UK DRI’s new report, Race to Cures, it conducted a survey of more than 200 researchers, which found that 90% think that new treatments for dementia will be found in the next 10 years. Nearly three-quarters think that the pace of discoveries and breakthroughs is increasing, and 100% think additional funding is important to enable breakthroughs. As someone who has seen grandparents and parents living and dying with dementia, I am really encouraged that researchers think new treatments will be found within the next decade. But that cannot happen on thin air, and the moonshot report from the all-party group sets out the mechanisms by which the Government can deliver their manifesto promise. I urge the Minister to help deliver the funding needed to make this a reality, so that dementia is no longer a grim sentence that people really fear.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for this short but very important debate today. It is some time since we addressed the issue of dementia in your Lordships’ Chamber, and it is something which noble Lords have had an interest in for many years. I also thank her for her very comprehensive introduction to the debate.
If the Minister has not worked it out by now, he is being asked to pick up the dementia moonshot and champion it in Government and with his colleagues because, at the moment, as other noble Lords have said, the Government have not brought forward the promised funding or set out a timetable for when it will be met.
We all have had experience of dealing with this awful condition and losing the people that we love to its ravages—or at least losing the essence of them, long before they die. In my case, it was an aunt and also a brother-in-law, who was the same age as me and who I had known since we were both involved in student politics. He sadly spent the last few years of his life in a nursing home and died during lockdown, but he had not known any of us in the family for quite some time.
I congratulate the APPG on the Fuelling the Moonshot report, following its inquiry into dementia research and the potential impact of the Government’s manifesto commitment to double funding for dementia research. The primary recommendation in the report is, of course, that the Government deliver on their manifesto commitment and double funding for dementia research. I think we all strongly support this recommendation.
How do the Government plan to address the three main areas that Alzheimer’s Research UK believes this additional funding should be channelled towards if we are to accelerate progress in dementia research? The first of these three areas is to help dementia research recover from the impact of the pandemic. Dementia research lacks capacity compared with other disease areas, as other noble Lords have said. It is vital we do not let the financial impact of Covid-19 reduce funding opportunities, leaving researchers with no choice but to leave the field. Indeed, a survey by Alzheimer’s Research UK found that more than one-third of dementia researchers were considering leaving, or had left, academic research due to the financial uncertainty created by the pandemic.
The second area is transforming early detection and diagnosis. An early and accurate diagnosis of dementia can empower people to access the support they need at an earlier stage, as well as to ensure that they can enrol into clinical trials for new treatments. At the moment, people living with dementia are often diagnosed at a stage when the disease that caused the condition has progressed too far for potential future treatments to be effective. Patients in many parts of the country do not have access to the latest diagnostics that provide the most accurate results and often experience long delays before receiving a diagnosis, even today. Alzheimer’s Research UK’s dementia attitudes monitor found that there was an appetite for earlier diagnosis, with 73% of the public saying they would want to know if they had Alzheimer’s disease before the onset of clinical symptoms.
Thirdly, I am sure the Minister would absolutely want to see the UK be the world leader in dementia clinical research. Given the world-leading institutions and researchers in the UK, this country has the potential to be a leading location for dementia clinical trials, which would allow patients here to be among the first to benefit from potential new treatments. The UK Government should invest in the development of a network of high-performing dementia clinical trial sites. They should look to emulate the success of the Covid-19 trials, for example, using lessons learned to speed up the approval process and generate a cohesive network of sites with a single point of entry for trial organisers. Given the Minister’s brief in the Government, I would have said that this absolutely played to his strengths.
It is a great shame that the comprehensive spending review was a missed opportunity for the Government to deliver on the moonshot commitment and harness the power of research to tackle one of the world’s major health challenges. The CSR announced £95 million for the delivery of the Government’s life sciences vision and £2.3 billion to transform NHS diagnostic services, but we need to see more detail on how that funding will benefit those living with dementia and the dementia research community.
On 7 September the Prime Minister was asked in the Commons whether the Government would fulfil the commitment in the Conservative manifesto to a dementia research moonshot. He replied:
“I can certainly confirm that the moonshot programme that was begun by my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Health—one of his many moonshots—continues.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/21; col. 166.]
That is slightly ambiguous and certainly flippant. I hope the Minister will rectify that flippancy.
The Autumn Budget and the spending review published on 27 October did not include a reference to a dementia moonshot funding pledge. Reacting to the Government’s spending commitments, the director of UK DRI, Professor Bart De Strooper, said that the omission was a setback to those working to deliver cures for dementia. The absence of a dementia moonshot today is a major blow to UK neuroscientists racing to find cures for this devastating disease, not to mention the 885,000 people living with dementia in the UK and their friends, families and carers. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for securing this important debate. On a personal note, I thank her for the time she took earlier this week to discuss some of her priorities and experiences with me. I think we all know people—family or others—who have experienced dementia, so we have seen it first-hand. As we look at our ageing society, as we get old and the medical technology gets better at keeping us living physically longer, one of the issues that we will face more and more is dementia and Alzheimer’s.
I know that all noble Lords will pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—indeed, they have done—as a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Dementia. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken so well today and conveyed such emotion and facts in such a short time. I am sure all noble Lords would like to express our thanks to the APPG on Dementia and to all those who contributed to the report for all the work that they put into the inquiry.
The recommendations in the report are incredibly timely since the Government are developing our new dementia strategy. The strategy will set out plans for dementia in England for future years, including our ambitions for dementia research. We will work closely with patients, researchers, funders and charities to incorporate things from the report into the development of the strategy.
I now turn to the central recommendation within the APPG report which is for the Government to deliver the dementia moonshot. As the report sets out, the Conservative Party’s manifesto committed to doubling funding for dementia research and delivering a moonshot. The moonshot will expand the UK’s internationally leading research effort to understand the mechanisms underlying the development and progression of dementia, deliver new therapies, enable people to live better with dementia, and look at ways to help prevent the condition.
We remain committed to supporting research into dementia and UK researchers are at the forefront of global efforts. The Government spent nearly £420 million on dementia research from 2015-16 to 2019-20. This was significantly ahead of our commitment to spend £300 million in this period, as set out in the Challenge on Dementia 2020.
We know that we need to go further to accelerate progress against this condition—progress towards the moon, if you like. However, increasing research spend takes time. One of the things I hear when talking to others about increasing research is that capacity building cannot be done at the press of a button. In addition, as I am sure noble Lords appreciate, in the current Parliament, the research system has been diverted to help combat the global pandemic, with all hands on deck and everyone focused on that.
In 2019-20, the most recent year for which spending figures are available, the Government spent over £75 million on dementia and neurodegeneration research. We have committed to maintaining at least this baseline level of spending, which equates to spending £375 million over the next five years.
The £5 billion investment in health-related research and development announced in the 2021 spending review reflects the Government’s commitment to supporting research into the most pressing health challenges of our time. Clearly, dementia is way up that list. We are working across government to finalise the outcomes from the spending review and identify ways to significantly boost research on dementia to support the delivery of the moonshot. I am, and will be, speaking to colleagues across government about achieving this.
In the meantime, rather than just waiting, we have been taking positive actions so that we can prepare the ground. This includes the launch of a highlight notice on dementia within the National Institute for Health Research. This invites ambitious dementia research applications and signals to the community that dementia is a priority area for the NIHR. I am encouraged that dementia researchers are coming forward with proposals in response.
This Government are committed to supporting dementia research across the translational pathway, from basic science, to understanding the causes of disease, through to applied research on treatments, care and quality of life, as well as public health prevention. Through the UK Dementia Research Institute, scientists have made huge leaps in understanding the mechanisms underlying disease progression, and researchers have developed potential new diagnostics and treatments.
The Dementias Platform UK has established technology-based networks to better understand how dementia starts and to support experimental medicine studies. In partnership with the Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK, people with dementia and their carers continue to be recruited, via Join Dementia Research, to take part in a range of important research. Through our NIHR research, we are supporting high-quality studies on lifestyle prevention, service provision, care and care technology.
I will now cover the specific questions rightly raised by noble Lords. The Government are committed to delivering on dementia research as much as possible; I am sure noble Lords understand the hiatus due to the focus on Covid. As we continue to look at Covid—although not necessarily beyond it; it may be with us for some time and we may well be looking at annual boosters, for example, and managing Covid in the same way that we manage flu—it is important that we consider how we deliver the dementia moonshot. We are discussing across government a timetable for the delivery of this as well as the timetable for doubling the funding. Increasing research takes time and, as noble Lords will understand, a lot of stuff has been diverted to help combat the global pandemic. However, we will set out plans for dementia, including research, for future years.
We also recognise that Covid-19 has caused problems across the sector and many researchers, including dementia researchers, are considering leaving academic research—as noble Lords pointed out—due to the financial uncertainties created by the pandemic. I assure noble Lords that Ministers and government officials have been liaising closely with medical research charities to understand the impact of the pandemic, identify how we can work together and ensure that patients benefit from charity-funded research. Most recently, BEIS and the DHSC have announced a £20 million support package, which will support early-career researchers funded by charities, helping to protect the pipeline of talented researchers who play an important role in delivering patient-saving research.
The report contains a recommendation to maximise the success of the Join Dementia Research platform. I assure noble Lords that increasing participation in all types of research is incredibly important, as part of our life sciences vision and of global Britain. As set out in the UK vision for clinical research delivery, our ambition is to ensure that the UK has the most advanced and data-enabled clinical research environment in the world.
This plays to my portfolio and two of my priorities. One is digitisation and sharing data, and the second is ensuring, across government, that the UK is a hub for life sciences. That includes research, trials and medical studies. We will build on digital platforms like Join Dementia Research to improve our ability to recruit patients to studies and ensure that participating in research is as easy as possible.
The NHS is one of the most trusted organisations in the UK, and our priority is to ensure the highest standards of data transparency and accountability. Only today I was on a call with an individual who has been helping us make sure we have trusted research environments, so that people can be confident about their data being shared appropriately.
The APPG report recommends that we move Join Dementia Research to an opt-out model, but this would not meet the standards or patient expectations around how our data is used. However, we are building on complementary platforms such as NHS DigiTrials to support the best use of data to facilitate recruitment to clinical trials. Join Dementia Research will play a key role alongside this development to ensure that all potentially eligible participants are invited to participate in studies relevant to them.
Noble Lords mentioned the Life Sciences Vision that we published on 6 July 2021. It set out our commitment to improve translational capabilities in this research, so that new treatments reach patients faster. We are looking at ways to continue to make funding available for dementia research through UK Research and Innovation and the NIHR.
We support dementia research by funding a range of ground-breaking research. Besides the NIHR, the Medical Research Council supports dementia research across the discovery and translational pathway. Through the UK Dementia and Research Institute, significant advances are being made in understanding disease mechanisms. The Dementias Platform UK, a unique public-private partnership, has established a technology-based network. Also, the Medical Research Council funds longitudinal population cohorts, which provide opportunities for dementia researchers to exploit data-driven science—for example, through the UK Biobank, which provides by far the world’s largest programme for genotyping and brain-body imaging.
We recognise that Covid-19 has caused problems across the sector and for many medical charities, which we recognise are a vital part of this. I reassure noble Lords—even if I have said it before—that we are liaising with medical research charities to understand the challenges they face, and to help them through it.
Government responsibility for delivering dementia research is shared between my department, the Department of Health and Social Care, with research delivered by the NIHR, and BEIS, with research delivered by UK Research and Innovation. In 2019-20, the NIHR spent £29 million on dementia research, and UKRI spent £46.7 million. The charities Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK are also funders of dementia research. We are working in partnership with those two charities, and with the UK Dementia Research Institute, which is a significant part of the ecosystem.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of early diagnosis. We support a range of issues in this important area. For example, at the UK Dementia Research Institute, scientists are trialling technologies such as cameras and sensors to detect dementia earlier. Dementias Platform UK is undertaking research on wearable devices which can monitor the progression of Alzheimer’s disease, and the NIHR recently launched the £9 million programme that we talked about.
During our one-to-one conversation, and in the debate tonight, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, mentioned arts-based interventions. I know that I will be facing an OPQ on this. As I have mentioned before, as an amateur musician—let me stress “amateur”—I say that we all know the role that music plays and the way it touches our hearts as well as our minds. There is no better buzz or thrill than being a live musician, playing in front of a live audience and seeing them respond. When I say “respond”, I mean hopefully in a positive way. In fact, you see how people feed off each other, and that energy helps you connect with people. It touches hearts and minds, affects your mood and quite often helps unlock people. It is a way of people expressing themselves in a way that they would not do ordinarily.
We understand that arts-based interventions such as music therapy can play an important role, along with social prescribing, which is currently being rolled out across the NHS for local agencies. We will set out some of these plans in future years. Let me give a couple of examples of projects we are working on. The MARQUE project, jointly funded with the ESRC, is looking at care home staff and non-drug treatments for agitation in people with dementia; the WHELD programme is helping the well-being of people with dementia living in care homes; and there is the IDEAL project.
I am sorry that I have overrun in my enthusiasm for arts-based subjects. There are other issues that I wanted to touch on, including capacity building. But let me end by saying this: we need to continue to build on our success to accelerate progress in dementia research, but we cannot do this alone, especially when there are so many experts among noble Lords and across government, but outside government as well. By working across government, co-operating with charities and the research community, and recruiting people with dementia, we hope to bring forward ambitious plans in our new dementia strategy.