Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
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 will resume after 10 minutes.
Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Construction Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the Grand Committee do consider the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Construction Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before both Houses on 16 September 2021. They are part of the Government’s programme to implement the UK-Canada Trade Continuity Agreement, specifically in the context of construction products.
These regulations are made using powers in the Trade Act 2021 to amend the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, known as the 2021 regulations. They make a simple amendment in order to cite the construction products regulations as specified regulations within that legislation.
This brings me to the detail of our statutory instrument. Using powers from the Trade Act 2021, these regulations make an amendment to the 2021 regulations to include the UK CPR as a specified regulation. They do no more than is necessary to implement the mutual recognition agreement on conformity assessment under the UK-Canada Trade Continuity Agreement. They do not change the key CPR requirements for placing construction products on the market in Great Britain. For those reasons, they are very simple to understand.
The effect of making this amendment can be considered in two parts. First, these regulations ensure that, pursuant to the UK-Canada Trade Continuity Agreement, the UK recognises and accepts a conformity assessment procedure or result issued by a Canadian conformity assessment body that has carried out the assessment of a construction product against UK CPR requirements. The effect of this is that a conformity assessment procedure undertaken by a Canadian conformity assessment body against UK designated standards will be treated as if it were performed by a UK approved body, enabling Canadian-assessed UK conformity assessment marked products to be placed on the market in Great Britain.
Secondly, and finally, these regulations enable the Secretary of State to assign an identification number to, and include in any register, a Canadian conformity assessment body carrying out an assessment in relation to the UK CPR and include a Canadian accreditation body in a register of those bodies. As a result, manufacturers can easily find and use a Canadian-based conformity assessment body that is accredited to undertake conformity assessment procedures against UK designated standards prior to export to Great Britain.
In summary, our overall approach to these amendments is entirely consistent with both the policy and legal intent of the Trade Act 2021 and enacts the policy that the Government have an obligation to execute as part of their international agreements. Equally, these regulations, and the 2021 regulations they amend, are entirely concurrent with the Northern Ireland protocol, which applies in Northern Ireland. These regulations serve a very specific purpose: to amend the 2021 regulations to ensure that the UK CPR is a specified regulation. This is necessary to enact the provisions of the UK-Canada Trade Agreement protocol on conformity assessment that came into force on 1 April 2021.
This instrument is necessary to ensure that we remove a technical barrier to trade between the UK and Canada and meet our obligations within the UK-Canada Trade Continuity Agreement, which has already come into force. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these regulations. Time is of the essence and I propose to be brief. In paragraph 4 of the helpful Explanatory Memorandum, reference is made to the territorial applications. So far as Wales is concerned, I refer to paragraph 10 on consultation and ask by what means were the consultations carried out? Were they carried out by officials—probably—or by Ministers? Was business done simply by letter? How did the department and the Senedd relate on this technical matter, which one supports? On this issue, how does a great department of state deal with a Parliament in faraway Wales? The Minister may have an observation to make.
Paragraph 12 deals with impact. Can the Minister furnish an example of how these regulations affect a specific business? Perhaps he can give one example, large or small. Paragraph 13 deals with small businesses, which are the lifeblood of the Welsh economy. Clearly, Government UK are the agency involved in communications with small businesses. Was the Federation of Small Businesses involved? Were chambers of trade and the CBI involved? What were the channels of communication used by Government UK where Wales is concerned? Is there an existing estimate of the envisaged effects? Also, is there a word missing from the first line of paragraph 13?
If the answers are not available now, might the Minister write? He might know that with regard to the European Union, Wales very heavily decided that it wanted to come out.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the Minister read out the technical details with gusto. He obviously enjoyed doing it. In a nutshell, what we are being asked to accept today is the transfer of a protocol attached to the EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada into UK law.
This simple transfer has involved a Command Paper—351—followed by the process in both Houses and presumably a time since January 2020 when Canadian building products were not able to be certified in Canada and the certification accepted by UK authorities. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain whether that is the case and whether building products from Canada have had to be certified here in the UK as well as in Canada during this period.
Then there is Regulation 6, which appears to relate to the assessment of the Canadian assessment bodies and whether these comply with UK standards. Can the Minister explain how the assessment body in Regulation 6 is held accountable for its determinations?
At the heart of all this are the UK construction products regulations. These regulations may well be comprehensive and require construction products to comply with basic safety standards. However, regulations are only ever as good as the processes for ensuring full compliance. The Grenfell Tower tragedy has exposed the awful failings in this regard. The question, therefore, to the Minister is a very important one: how will the Government ensure complete compliance with the assessments of complex construction materials and, as importantly, ensure that the products are used as per the regulations? Those are the lessons from Grenfell.
In conclusion, this SI is a straightforward transfer of mutual recognition agreements from EU law to the UK in relation to construction materials from Canada. The wider issue is this: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [Interruption.] Well, our beloved Prime Minister uses Latin all the time, so I thought I would add some in.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Exactly, perhaps. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who guards the guardians? This is important. With those remarks, I broadly agree with the proposed changes.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is good to be back in the Moses Room with the Minister. As other Members have said, the regulations before us are technical. I can say at the outset that I am happy to support them.
My noble friend Lord Jones asked about consultation. I am sure that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, will come back on that point, particularly in regard to consultation with the devolved Administrations. My noble friend mentioned the Senedd, but it would be interesting to hear what consultations have taken place with the other Administrations. I also noted from the Dispatch Box that there was no consultation with the public because it was not deemed necessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised an important issue in respect of Regulation 6. It is absolutely fine to agree the regulations as they are here now; there is no problem with them whatever. But the question is always, is it not, what happens when things go wrong. I think that was the noble Baroness’s point. It is a fair point. We are authorising a body in another country to certify that products are correct and stuff, but further down the track, if things go wrong, what processes are there? How do we deal with that? This is the nub of the question that the noble Baroness and I want answered.
I will leave it there. I accept that, if the Minister does not have an answer now, he will write to colleagues and place a copy in the Library. As I said, I am content with the regulations as they stand.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I particularly appreciated the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Jones, who I gather has had more than half a century of parliamentary service. That is quite incredible; I am almost the same age as the number of years he has served in both Houses. The noble Lord is obviously very passionate about Wales. He wanted to know about the consultation. No public consultation was carried out, because it was not considered necessary.
I understand a bit about the principles of this. It is all about opening up markets. We know that there is a shortage of construction products; that was the nature of the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Although it is good in principle, how do we ensure in practice that the construction products that are recognised by a conformity assessment body that is not our own do not result in any dumbing down in standards? Obviously, as the Minister for Building Safety, that has been the key question on which I have wanted reassurance. We are absolutely committed to maintaining high standards for construction products. We know what we saw in the tragedy of Grenfell; indeed, I referenced Lakanal House in Southwark and Garnock Court in 1999. Every decade, we have had a tragedy.
I assure noble Lords that this legislation does not amend the standard of construction products being placed on the market. That is the critical thing for everybody to recognise. However, there is a shortage of construction materials, so we will get high-quality products, increase availability and encourage the flow between the UK and Canada. That can only be a good thing, but I take the point. I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance and answered the specific point on consultation.
If there is anything else, I will be happy to pick it up and write to noble Lords, for example on some of the technical points.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
Thank you. To conclude, we think that these regulations are vital, as is getting these construction products assessed against UK CPR requirements. If those assessments are to be carried out by Canadian conformity assessment bodies, we need to ensure that they are assessed against our own regulatory requirements.
I have done my best to answer the questions I can answer. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Jones. I take it that noble Lords support the regulations, and I thank them for that.
Local Audit (Appointing Person) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Audit (Appointing Person) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations we are considering today were laid in draft before the House on 21 October 2021. If approved and made, they will provide for the appointing person to set fee scales for local audit later in the financial year, apply standardised fee variations in specific circumstances and appoint auditors for shorter contract periods where appropriate.
These regulations are designed to provide the appointing person with greater flexibility to ensure that the costs to audit firms of additional work are met, and to reduce the need for time-consuming case-by-case consideration of fee variation requests, in order to support the timely completion of local audits.
The Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 enables the Secretary of State, through secondary legislation, to make regulations. This statutory instrument was laid before Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. The 2014 Act placed responsibility on local bodies to appoint their own auditors. However, the Act also provided for an “appointing person”, specified by the Secretary of State, to appoint auditors on behalf of local bodies that choose to opt in to such arrangements. Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd, a subsidiary of the Local Government Association, is the body currently appointed to perform this role.
In September 2020, Sir Tony Redmond published his independent review into the effectiveness of external audit and transparency of financial reporting in local authorities. The Redmond review found that there was an increasing disparity between the fee scales set by Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd and the amount of work being carried out by auditors. This had led in turn to a large increase in the amount of fee variation requests. These are requests from auditors to charge additional fees beyond those provided for in the fee scales set by Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd for each audit year.
The Local Audit (Appointing Person) Regulations 2015 provide for fee variations relating to the audit of a particular authority to be considered by Public Sector Audit Appointments. In practice, this means that Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd can consider and approve fee variations on a case-by-case basis only.
In its response to the Redmond review, the Government committed to review regulations to provide Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd with greater flexibility to ensure that the costs to audit firms of additional work were met more easily. To provide this flexibility, earlier this year the Government consulted on potential amendments to the 2015 regulations. The overwhelming majority of respondents to the consultation agreed with the Government’s proposals, which we now propose as the following amendments to the 2015 regulations.
First, this statutory instrument will amend the regulatory deadline for Public Sector Audit Appointments to set fee scales from before the start of the financial year to 30 November of the financial year to which the fee scales relate. This will enable Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd to take into account more up-to-date information when setting fee scales, including results from previous audits. More accurate fee scales should help to reduce the number of instances where fee variations are required.
Secondly, this instrument will enable Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd to set standardised fee variations to be applied to all local bodies or groups of local bodies. This change is designed to streamline the fee variation process where a particular issue has had a similar impact on the audit of large numbers of local bodies. Circumstances in which these may apply could include a regulatory or policy change, such as a change to accounting or auditing codes, or even one-off events that have a national or far-reaching impact, as we have experienced with the pandemic. In these circumstances, Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd will be able to apply a standardised fee to all affected bodies, preventing the auditor from having to submit a fee variation request for each individual body. Public Sector Audit Appointments will be required to consult both opted-in local bodies and local auditors before setting standardised fee variations.
Thirdly, this instrument will give Public Sector Audit Appointments the flexibility to appoint auditors for one or more financial years at time, up to a maximum of five consecutive years. This could include years which precede the date on which the local authority opts in, if those years still have an audit outstanding. Under existing regulations, Public Sector Audit Appointments is required to appoint an auditor to that authority for the remainder of the compulsory appointing period, which could be up to five years, depending at what point in the appointing period the authority elects to opt in.
In conclusion, these changes will help to support the stability of the local audit market by making it easier for firms to claim for the costs of work completed—
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, in conclusion, these changes will help to support the stability of the local audit market by making it easier for firms to claim for the costs of work completed. Alongside this, we are continuing to implement all the recommendations that we committed to in our response to the Redmond review.
I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Grand Committee.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and the details he has to hand. Can he give instances of the likely typical fees that will be set by the appointing person? Fees are public money. How will the appointing person be selected or chosen? Will it be a ministerial appointment, or will it be left to local government itself via its own representative bodies? What will be the likely salary of the appointing person, or is that settled already? I ask questions the answers to which may not be to the Minister’s conscientious hand. If that is the case, might he please write?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, a member of Kirklees Council and a member of that council’s audit and governance committee.
The Redmond review into local authority financial reporting and audit is far-reaching in its recommendations and broadly welcomed by those in local government, who want greater simplicity and transparency in financial reporting and auditing. One challenge facing local government audit requirements is the narrowing number of private audit firms willing to take on such audits. Yet sound auditing is an essential prerequisite for value-for-money judgments and financial transparency, as local government financing becomes ever more complex.
The proposals in this SI tackle some of the issues regarding process. These relate to fee scales, deadlines, standard fee variations and the length of time for which an auditor is appointed. Setting the end of November as the deadline for setting fee scales so that up-to-date information can be included in the calculation seems sensible, as does setting standardised fee variations. However, can the Minister confirm that such fee variations will be in proportion to the local authority accounts being audited?
I have some concerns about the potential for an auditor to be appointed for as long a period as five years. As external auditors rely heavily on a good working relationship with the local authority finance team and its internal auditors, there is always a risk that a cosy relationship develops. Can the Minister explain the thinking behind the ability for the same auditor, rather than the same audit company, to continue for five years? An explanation of the criteria that will be used by the appointing person to appoint for shorter periods “where desirable” would be helpful, as would an outline of the circumstances for audit firm rotation partway through an audit period, to understand the thinking behind that. If the Minister does not have all that in front of him, it would be good if he could write me a note.
There is a far deeper concern with local authority audits than will be dealt with by this SI. The Financial Reporting Council, which regulates the accounting industry, said this year that 60% of the English local authority audits it had reviewed did not meet its required standards. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee detailed the problems this July. I will quote from the summary of its report, as we need to think about it:
“Without urgent action from government, the audit system for local authorities in England may soon reach breaking point. With approximately £100 billion of local government spending requiring audit each year”,
the Ministry of whatever it is called now—levelling-down, communities and whatever—
“has become increasingly complacent in its oversight of a local audit market now entirely reliant upon only eight firms, two of which are responsible for up to 70% of local authority audits. This has not been helped by the growing complexity of local authority accounts … If local authorities are to effectively recover from the pandemic, it is critical that citizens have the necessary assurances that their finances are in order and being managed in the correct manner.”
Both the FRC and the Public Accounts Committee report raise fundamental issues about local authority auditing which are not addressed by this SI, but which I hope the Minister can respond to either now or in writing. Having said that, with the exception of the questions I raised earlier, I concur with the changes that have been proposed.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I, too, declare my interest to the Grand Committee as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Audit is about ensuring the proper inspection of a body’s financial affairs, ensuring that the financial dealings of the organisation, and the information that residents get, is correct and proper. It gives confidence to local people and, of course, to the Government and everybody else that an organisation is acting properly—or it identifies irregularities.
I was first elected a councillor in 1986—I am showing my age now. I remember the old district auditor, who used to look after the accounts. Of course, that is now all gone; we have local audits run through the Local Government Association.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised an important point on fee scales, what those fees are, when they can be varied and changed, and why. There is also the risk around the relationship: if the same person does the work every year, there may be an issue with things becoming too cosy. For me, there is the whole question of value for money. This is council tax payers’ money that we are spending here—so what are we doing to ensure that, when any fees are varied, we are getting value for money? The noble Baroness made the point that fewer and fewer firms are willing and able to do this work, which is also an issue for the Government to look at.
For me, it is about ensuring that public money is spent wisely, properly and legally. If fees are going to be varied, how do we ensure value for money? Then there is the issue of the reduced number of firms doing this work. How do we ensure that the relationship is not too cosy and is always properly professional? Having said that, I have no issue with the regulations, and I shall leave it there. I hope that the Minister can respond to the issues raised. I know that, if he cannot, he will come back to noble Lords with a letter and place it in the Library of the House.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting short debate on these regulations, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The problem around audit is long-standing. I remember when I first became a councillor, which was a little later than the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, back in January 1996 —a very cold month, if I remember—there were real difficulties with filing accounts on time, even then. This has been a long-standing problem and is not a recent one. Those who have read the Redmond review will recognise that the best way to deal with it is by investing and providing additional funding to support local bodies to improve standards. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is important. There is a contribution of some £15 million to support local bodies with rising audit fees, making sure that there is the competence required to file accounts in a timely way.
Often, there will be an issue around reconciliation of accounts, which is quite shocking. If you cannot reconcile your accounts—the fundamental accounts in control—money can be lost. There have been examples of councils losing money. So, having high-quality audit is extremely important, as is the completion of audits, which is vital in maintaining transparency and assurance of local authority accounts. Late delivery of local assurance can have a significant impact, not just on local authority financial planning but on the timely completion of whole government accounts. That is why the Government are continuing to implement all recommendations of the Redmond review, including the regulations before us today.
I will do my best to answer some of the questions and I will follow up in writing if I am not able to. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jones, the appointing person is specified by the Secretary of State at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. It is not a salaried position; they are paid by the local authorities. Importantly, we are keen on the use of the scheme through the Local Government Association and Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd, which has the specific technical expertise. Of course, local authorities can choose who they like. We recognise that this is a good scheme, which happens to be over a five-year period.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I will write on her specific points about shorter appointments, but all appointments require local authorities to voluntarily opt in. We recently consulted on proposals to establish the audit, reporting and governance authority, which is due to replace the Financial Reporting Council as the new systems leader for local audit. We will publish our consultation response in due course.
This is a largely technical provision, which I think has the support of noble Lords.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I asked whether the standardised variations of the fees would be in proportion to the accounts that were being audited.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that specific point. It is obviously technical in its nature. Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd will be required to consult local bodies and local auditors before setting standardised fees.
Antique Firearms (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Antique Firearms (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the draft regulations were laid before the House on 14 September. The Committee will recall that it debated the Antique Firearms Regulations on 6 January this year. The regulations introduced a statutory definition of antique firearms to prevent criminals from exploiting a lack of legal clarity to obtain old but functioning firearms for use in crime. The regulations came into effect on 22 March this year and were based closely on long-standing Home Office guidance. They now define in law which firearms can safely be regarded as antique and therefore exempt from control, and those that must be subject to licensing.
Here, I have to issue an apology. Following concerns raised by law enforcement, the new definition does not include seven types of cartridge, which, together with their associated firearms, have featured most often in crimes involving antique firearms. This means that these particular firearms can no longer be regarded as antique. However, owners were able to retain them on a firearms certificate and a six-month transition period was included in the relevant commencement regulations to allow owners to license, sell or otherwise lawfully dispose of their firearms. That transition period ended on 22 September this year.
During the transition period, it was brought to the Government’s attention that a category of cartridges that had previously been included in the Home Office guidance had been inadvertently omitted from the regulations. These cartridges are for vintage rifles, punt guns and shotguns with bores greater than 10. The regulations, which this Committee may recall are unusually technical and lengthy, listing over 450 old cartridge types, went through checks prior to being laid. Regrettably, however, this omission was not picked up. Unless we correct the error, owners of the omitted firearms would have to license them, incurring unnecessary inconvenience and expense, with no benefit to public safety.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for explaining the reasons behind this amendment, which follows rather rapidly on the original document. I declare an interest as an owner of a 200 year-old gun, which is a muzzleloader, but I think it was excused in the earlier legislation.
The Minister mentioned various classes of gun that would be excepted. I guess that her list was the existing one, because I cannot see that this amendment includes any new classes; it merely corrects the spelling of “ammunition”. Was this corrected along with the external advice of people who own these guns? I would be grateful to hear from her.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when the Government recognise their mistake, cock-up, call it what you like, and put their hand up quickly, one should applaud, because that way we end up with fewer mistakes down the road, so I thank the Government for addressing this.
I remember doing the other regulations. There was a long and complicated list, as the noble Baroness said. One point I tried to make at that time but could not was why World War I guns of exactly the calibre as World War II guns were not included in the list, but that has gone.
Exactly what criteria are being used to determine what makes a firearm antique? There have been comments about black powder. It is technically possible to reproduce everything, so what are the criteria for how difficult it has to be? Hearing them again might help to clarify why we are doing this, so that anybody who is listening in—I am sure there is rapt attention outside—will know exactly why we are categorising certain weapons as antique.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the Labour Party supports these regulations. They are largely technical in nature. This instrument corrects an error in the Antique Firearms Regulations 2021. In his summing-up of the brief debate in the other place on 8 November, the Minister, Kit Malthouse, described the whole experience of correcting this error as a “chastening experience” for him and the firearms team at the Home Office, and he expressed the hope that there would not be a recurrence of a similar error in future. I thank him for that candour, and I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the apology.
In 2017, the Government legislated through the Police and Crime Act to provide a statutory definition of an antique firearm. The Home Office consulted on what the cut-off date for manufacture should be, the propulsion systems and the cartridges. This information informed the 2021 regulations. It is these regulations that are being updated. The instrument corrects an omission from the regulations. It amends the schedule to the 2021 regulations by adding cartridges for vintage rifles, punt guns and shotguns with bores greater than 10. It also makes minor corrections to the descriptions of some other types of cartridges in the schedule.
From reading the short debate in the other place and the Library note, I have a few questions for the Minister. First, the territorial extent of this instrument is England, Wales and Scotland. What is the position in Northern Ireland on similar issues with antique firearms? I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that. Secondly, the Library note explains that the ongoing approach to monitoring and reviewing this legislation is twofold. The first is to establish a non-statutory group of experts who will meet annually to consider the latest developments in the criminal use of antique firearms. Secondly, the Home Office is to carry out a three-year review of the 2021 regulations. Can the Minister say whether these groups have been established and when they are next due to meet?
In his response to the debate on 8 November in the other place, the Minister spoke of the prevalence of the use of antique firearms in criminal activity. He said that the National Ballistics Intelligence Service
“saw a rise in the use of antique firearms between 2008 and 2016, with 95 uses in 2016, and recoveries have decreased slightly.”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 8/11/21; col. 7.]
He also said that there had been six fatalities since 2006 from the use of these weapons. This data seems very out of date. When would the Minister reasonably expect to have a more up-to-date analysis of the extent of the problem of the use of antique weapons in criminal activity?
Finally, in the other place, my honourable friend Conor McGinn asked the Minister about the new statutory guidance to chief police officers on firearms licensing coming into force. He asked about the information to be provided about any medical conditions, particularly mental health conditions, of people applying for licences. I understand that this is outside the scope of this statutory instrument, but can the Minister say whether the twofold monitoring approach, which I mentioned earlier, will cover developments in mental capacity assessments of those who currently hold firearm licences?
We support these regulations. Our priority, like the Government’s, is to protect the public, and we agree that a systematic, ongoing review of regulations is the best way to achieve this.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked whether there is a new type of gun. The answer is no. The classes of vintage rifles, punts and shotguns with bores greater than 10, which were omitted, are now being inserted. Nothing new is being inserted—these should have been inserted in the first place, hence my apology.
As to the definition of antique firearms, that is specified in the Antique Firearms Regulations 2021. They must have been manufactured before 1 September 1939.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about the territorial extent. It is a devolved approach. They have a similar approach to Great Britain. Shooting in Scotland is covered by the same legislation as England and Wales, apart from air rifles.
I will consult the department on the data when I go back. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, thinks that this data seems to be a bit out of date. The data I have is that the antiques firearms recovered per year in criminal circumstances increased from eight in 2008 to 95 in 2016. The number of recoveries has decreased slightly since 2016, down to 80 in 2020. I will see if I have any more up-to-date information for him. I will also find out for him when the non-statutory groups of experts in the three-year review are due to meet, because I am not sure at this stage.
I hope I have answered all the questions.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I have one additional question. Will the review groups also look at the mental capacity and that other aspect of the licensing process?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I will definitely get back to the noble Lord on that. I think there has been something on that recently.
Lord Addington (LD)
I raised the point that the rifles used by the British Army in 1917 are effectively the same as the rifles used in 1940. The same is true of the German and American armies. Why is there this artificial cut-off? The rifles fire the same bullets. They are using the same calibre of bullets, the same propulsion, the same white powder for the same lethal intent. Some clarification of that would help. If it is about killing capacity, it is there in these slightly older weapons.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I get the point the noble Lord is making. Clearly, there has to be a cut-off somewhere, but I will find that out for him.
Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2021
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2021.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, this draft order was laid before the House on 18 October 2021. It will support the Scottish Government’s decision to raise the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland from eight to 12 by making cross-border provisions necessary for the implementation of this change.
This order, known as a Scotland Act order, is made in consequence of the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019, which I shall now refer to as the 2019 Act. Scotland Act orders are a type of secondary legislation made under the Scotland Act 1998, which has formed the foundation of the devolution settlement with Scotland for over 20 years.
The 2019 Act raised the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland from eight to 12. The Act also established the role of the independent reviewer. This is a position that oversees the disclosure of convictions, and other relevant information, related to when a person was under the age of 12. The 2019 Act provides specific powers for the police to investigate instances of serious harmful behaviour by children under the age of 12.
To support this change, amendments are required to UK legislation to ensure that the 2019 Act can be implemented fully. The order is designed to protect and support children. With this in mind, I first want to explain the disclosure provisions set out in Part 2 of the legislation.
While the 2019 Act made it possible for Scottish Ministers to request certain information from chief police officers in Scotland relating to the behaviour of children, the Act also created the position of the independent reviewer. In their post, the independent reviewer will be responsible for determining whether this information ought to be released if it relates to a time when the person in question was under the age of 12.
This Scotland Act Order will ensure that the powers of the independent reviewer apply across the UK, so that information provided by chief police officers from other forces will be reviewed by the independent reviewer before it is released to Scottish Ministers.
The order also extends provisions of the 2019 Act, which currently apply to Police Scotland, to constables of non-territorial forces operating in Scotland. This will ensure that consistency in policing is achieved across Scotland, with equality of treatment for any child in that jurisdiction regardless of the situation. That said, it is not expected that these non-territorial forces will use these provisions often, if at all.
Police across the UK are also supported by this order. Section 75 of the 2019 Act has made it an offence in Scotland for a person to obstruct investigations into behaviour of a child under the age of 12 who is believed to have caused serious harm to another person. The order will extend this offence to include obstructions that occur elsewhere in the UK. Similarly, the order facilitates the cross-border enforcement of court orders made under the 2019 Act for the collection of information from a child under the age of 12 in other parts of the UK. This may be necessary if a child has returned home to another part of the UK following a serious incident in Scotland.
Let me offer a real-world example of the changes that the order seeks to make. Let us consider what might happen if a child who lives in England is involved in a serious incident while on holiday in Scotland. The order provides that a Scottish court order authorising collection of information from that child can be enforced in England. This will enable the incident to be effectively investigated so that the right support can be put in place for the child and any person involved in the incident. Through the changes made by this order, children in Scotland will be better supported.
This order will also enable appropriate bodies such as Police Scotland and local authorities to engage with their counterparts across the UK to ensure that harmful behaviour is addressed proportionately and accurately. Court orders sought and granted in Scotland will be enforceable by police forces across the UK in relation to a child whose behaviour causes harm and who then leaves Scotland before Scottish police were able to enforce the order.
It is important to point out here that the number of children affected is very small. In Scotland, data provided by the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration shows that, in 2016-17—those are the most recent figures—only 16 serious cases involving children under 12 resulted in an interview. Police Scotland also advised that only 10 children under 12 were searched during that same period.
In summary, this instrument will ensure that the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019 can be fully implemented, with necessary cross-border provisions put in place. We believe that this order is a sensible and pragmatic step to assist the Scottish Government. I commend it to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the circumstances; indeed, I thank him for the Explanatory Notes, which make this clear. However, they raise some interesting questions.
First, it is perhaps worth recording that, prior to the 2019 Act, the situation in Scotland was anomalous in quite remarkable ways. The age of criminal responsibility was eight, yet we had a well-developed set of children’s panels and children’s hearings which were designed to ensure that children were not treated as criminals and not subject to the criminal process. The surprise is how long it took to address the age of criminal responsibility.
Secondly, the rest of the UK is now out of step with Scotland: the age of criminal responsibility is 10 in the rest of the UK and 12 in Scotland. This raises the question not of the enforceability of this order but of whether the relevant authorities will understand, engage with and be fully conversant with the differences. I think we all recognise that, sadly, children, including very young children, are capable of quite wicked acts, acts that are by definition and in their characteristic criminal. However, if they are under the age of criminal responsibility, they will not be subjected to the criminal process.
So, when there is an issue of questioning, following up on or investigating children, will the authorities in other parts of the United Kingdom approach it in the same way as the authorities in Scotland, given the different background? Will this lead to children who have crossed the border being treated differently and adversely through a lack of appreciation and understanding of the differences between the two regimes? Although we do not expect many cases like this, that issue could raise an anomaly.
On a broader issue that is perhaps a matter for the United Kingdom Government, at 12, the age of criminal responsibility is still considered by many authorities to be too low. I think the Council of Europe suggested that it should be at least 14, while the United Nations thinks that it should be 16. Is any consideration being given to the rest of the United Kingdom raising the age of criminal responsibility? Also, because the final stages of the Act will not come into force until next month, are any issues likely to arise from the transitional arrangements—that is, will children under the age of 12 who committed a crime or were engaged in the system before the Act came into force still be subjected to the old regimes both north and south of the border? How might that play out? Of course we understand the need for the order—that is not in question—but I hope the Minister recognises that some issues could arise out of the differences in both the age of criminal responsibility and the procedures applied in Scotland compared with England.
As a final footnote, the children’s panel and children’s hearings have generally been recognised as a highly progressive mechanism for dealing with young offenders below the age of criminal responsibility, yet they have not been replicated. With the wonders of our United Kingdom, I wonder why we do not pursue best practice. This is one area where Scotland, having lagged behind, certainly on the age of criminal responsibility, has now overtaken England and has a much more constructive, progressive system for handling young people who get into trouble. Having read the guidelines for the child interview rights practitioners, which are quite thorough, I wonder whether there will be people in other parts of the United Kingdom who have conformed to the same sort of guidelines that have been established for the Scottish process.
I hope the Minister understands what we are talking about. I accept that it is very few cases, but despite the law trying to ensure that there is a common practice across the United Kingdom, the differences might lead to a situation where the law and the practice do not coincide.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this instrument so clearly. We support it in the context of increasing the age of criminal responsibility from eight to 12. It is appropriate that measures be taken to give effect to that, particularly in relation to the cross-border element. I am interested in how it works in practice. I might not have understood it, but I would be grateful if the Minister would help me on this.
As I understand it, in Part 2 of the order we are dealing with a situation where, typically, a chief constable of an area in England has information about what somebody did between the ages of eight and 12. We are talking about something that either is or would have been a criminal offence in England when the person committed it. If the position is that the chief constable of the English area has that information, is the effect of this provision that, before the chief constable provides that information to Scottish Ministers, the independent reviewer must consider whether the chief constable of the English area should make that information available to the Scottish Ministers?
If that is the position, before the chief constable refers the matter to the independent reviewer, does he or she have a discretion as to whether they submit that information to the independent reviewer? If the chief constable has such a discretion, could the Minister—I gave no warning of this, so I would quite understand if he needs to write to me—give some indication of the basis on which the chief constable should determine whether to submit that information to the independent reviewer? Separately, could he indicate what approach the independent reviewer will take as to whether such information should be made available from the chief constable of the English area to the Scottish Ministers?
What I am trying to get at is some assistance for the English police forces. Understandably, the order gives no indication of the right approach in relation to this. Given what the Scottish Government are asking the UK Government to do, do the Scottish Government want the norm to be that the English police forces do not disclose the information about what the person did between eight and 12, save in exceptional circumstances? If that is the policy intention, what other sorts of things would be exceptional circumstances?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for their general support for this order. As I alluded to earlier, the instrument before us today will support the Scottish Government in the implementation of the 2019 Act and ensure that effective and proper cross-border co-operation is undertaken. I re-emphasise that the order will ensure that disclosure of information relating to when a person under the age of 12 is properly managed—I shall come back to this point—that police forces operating in Scotland are all working under the same regulations, and that it will provide support for Police Scotland in its work across the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked a number of questions, which I hope I can answer. The first is very simple: why has it taken so long, going back to 2010, for us to get to this point today? He might not expect any other answer than the one that I am about to give: that this is certainly a matter for the Scottish Government. In some defence of the Scottish Government, I would say that it is important to recognise the complexity and sheer volume of work required to ensure that we get to this point and that the work of this important side is successful. It is fair to say that the Scottish Government have taken a phased approach to implementation, prioritising changes that have the most material positive effects for children and young people. But it is for the Scottish Government to say why it has taken so long.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked about the age of criminal responsibility and how it compares with arrangements in other parts of the UK. He will know that the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales was set at age 10 by the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 and has been maintained by subsequent Governments. Most children aged 10 to 14 are diverted from the formal criminal justice system or receive an out-of-court disposal. Younger children should not be prosecuted for offences unnecessarily when a better alternative may be available. A child’s needs, maturity and chronological age are always considered in determining the most appropriate response to offending. As the noble Lord will know—he is right to ask the question—this is a complex issue, and the needs of each child need to be taken into account.
The noble Lord also asked about cross-border co-operation work, and I think that the noble and learned Lord also alluded to this. Co-operation could be in the form of enforcement of a Scottish court order by an English or Welsh police force or the Police Service of Northern Ireland on behalf of Police Scotland. Information-sharing between Scottish, Welsh and English local authorities will also allow for the child’s resident authority to take appropriate actions to address serious harmful behaviour that took place in Scotland. The Scottish Government have agreed to pay individual local authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland any additional costs each time the independent reviewer makes a request for information.
In respect of Northern Ireland, a number of statutory criminal justice agencies, including the Police Service of Northern Ireland, AccessNI and the Youth Justice Agency, have agreed to share information with the independent reviewer, on request, where a child is known to the authorities in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also asked whether this order will create problems for complicated cases involving young people between Scotland and England. Again, it plays well into some of the questions raised by the noble and learned Lord. The answer is no. The order is designed to protect and support children in the very rare instances where cross-border co-operation is needed. It simply gives the relevant bodies the ability to effectively collaborate on investigating an incident of harmful behaviour so that the right support can be put in place for a child. Again, I make the point that this is child specific.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, raised the issue of transition. There are no transitional arrangements for police powers. There is nothing retrospective about raising the age, so something effective beforehand that was an offence still will be, but, as there are so few cases, there may well be none in the police system at the point of commencement.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, raised a number of questions and I may well need to read Hansard and produce a letter for him. I appreciate the fact that he acknowledged that he did not give me any advance notice, but that is okay. He asked an important question: how does the cross-border arrangement work in practice? Operational guidance is being developed by Social Work, Police Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Ministerial guidance has already been issued in relation to certain police powers in the Act, but the answer is that it is work in progress. Noble Lords may wonder why that is the case, given that we are 10 years in, but that is the answer.
The noble and learned Lord also asked how Police Scotland and Scottish local authorities work with their counterparts in the rest of the UK. I think that I have answered part of that question in response to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, but I add that the order will enable Scottish bodies to work with their counterparts across the UK to investigate harmful behaviour by a child under the age of 12 in Scotland. This could be through the enforcement of court orders or information sharing between local authorities to help to address the harmful behaviour in the child’s local residential area.
The noble and learned Lord also asked about the independent reviewer and how it works specifically. I hope that I can answer many of his questions in the following way. The independent reviewer can review information concerning the behaviour of persons while under 12 before the information can be disclosed on an enhanced disclosure or protecting vulnerable groups scheme record, as other relevant information. The reviewer has the power to gather additional information necessary to carry out the review and must invite representations from the applicant and take them into account when doing so.
This newly created role introduces a fairer and more proportionate approach to the disclosure of information that occurred while the individual was under the age of 12. The reviewer will take into account the interests of the young person and of community safety when deciding if an individual’s actions during their childhood should be disclosed, to ensure that young people’s life chances are not unnecessarily affected by harmful behaviour in childhood. However, I am aware that the noble and learned Lord asked some precise procedural questions, so I may not have given the full answer. I will need to read Hansard and get back to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked about children’s court hearings and why these have not been implemented. It can be misleading to make simple comparisons between countries, because youth justice and wider social security systems differ considerably, which I suspect he will know. It is the aim of English forces to check information with the independent reviewer before submitting to the Scottish Government. That relates to a question asked, I think, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
I hope that I have covered the majority of questions. There is quite a lot of technical information here and I feel that I probably need to write a full letter just to check that I have everything in order and to ensure that full answers are given. Otherwise, with that, I beg to move.
Eggs (England) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Eggs (England) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument allows marketing standards checks on class A eggs imported from third countries to continue to be conducted at the locations where they already take place. It is needed because, without amendment, the retained regulation on egg marketing standards will require these checks to be relocated, causing disruption to the current inspection process and requiring considerable additional resources, with no material benefit for consumers. This instrument will have effect only in England. The Scottish Government and the Welsh Government will make the same amendment to their own domestic legislation.
Marketing standards are intended to ensure that the market is supplied with products of a standardised and satisfactory quality to meet consumer expectations. They are in addition to, and separate from, sanitary standards. Sanitary standards will continue to be checked at the border. The amendment made by this instrument is not a change of policy and confirms the existing arrangements for these marketing standards checks.
Through the functioning of the Northern Ireland protocol, Regulation 589/2008 on egg marketing standards, which Great Britain has retained, will continue to apply to Northern Ireland as it has effect in the EU. Therefore, the current checking arrangements for the movement of third-country class A eggs into Northern Ireland will not change. For class A eggs to be imported into Great Britain from a third country, the Secretary of State must determine whether the third country has equivalent egg marketing standards following an assessment of its legislation and checking practices. Only EU member states are currently recognised as producing eggs to this equivalent standard.
In the future, should we wish to import eggs from any third countries other than the EU, the Secretary of State must first make a similar determination of equivalence. Until then, class A eggs may not be imported into Great Britain from non-EU countries. We will continue to uphold the high standards expected by UK consumers and businesses.
Since a grace period has been granted for marketing standards and SPS checks on EU goods until 30 June 2022, checks will need to be conducted on class A eggs from the EU from July 2022. Any third-country imports that might be agreed before July 2022 would also require border checks. Under current legislation, all these checks would need to take place at the border.
If this statutory instrument does not pass, our current operating practices will not be compliant with our retained legislation. The change contained in this statutory instrument has been discussed with British egg industry stakeholders. Defra has held a joint consultation with the Scottish and Welsh Governments on the proposed change and continues to engage closely with the sector. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the instrument before us this afternoon, on which I have a number of questions. Paragraph 8.1 on page 2 of the Exploratory Memorandum says that:
“This instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union or trigger the statement requirements under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.”
However, it would seem that it relates entirely to our withdrawal from the European Union and the retained legislation that pertains to that. I am therefore not sure why that paragraph is there. Can the Minister clarify that please?
Paragraphs 10.4 and 10.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum refer to the consultation, which was carried out through
“the online survey Citizen Space”.
I do not know about other noble Lords, but online surveys are complete anathema to me. They do not seem a very personalised or direct form of consultation. Can my noble friend please explain to us whether this is now the way forward? Is this the Government’s consultation mode of choice? I want to place on record that I do not approve of that at all. It was also carried out on what is traditionally a holiday period—from 19 July to 16 August. I thought that consultations normally take place over a 12-week or three-month period to enable those who wish to respond in some detail to do so. This also allows the industry to talk among themselves to see whether they want only one person to respond, or everyone.
Paragraph 10.4 goes on to say that:
“The consultation targeted stakeholders from the egg sector, with close engagement with egg enforcement bodies.”
It would be interesting to know whether the six responses received match those that were actually sought. How many targeted invitations were sent out? Of those six, only one agreed to the proposal. The overwhelming majority of respondents disagreed with it,
“preferring checks to take place at the border, due to concerns that these measures should mirror the requirements for import of Class A eggs into the EU.”
I would like to know the basis on which we have moved away from the historic checks that we did at the place of import and why the Government are not carrying the industry with us.
I have to say that I am deeply unhappy that, to mitigate the concerns expressed by the vast majority of those who expressed any concerns at all, all we are going to do is to organise a round table. Clearly, we cannot amend the statutory instrument so I would be very interested to know what form the round table will take. The fact that a round table is going to be convened demonstrates that there are widespread concerns in the industry. I would be very interested to know who from the department will attend the round table. Will it be at ministerial level or official-only level?
I pay tribute to the report produced by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and refer to the committee’s thoughts on page 12 and in Appendix 4 on page 32. It appears that there are going to be two different types of checks in relation to GB to Northern Ireland. There will be checks at the border to ensure that the consignment contains either class A or B eggs, as at present. However, all eggs from Northern Ireland will continue to have unfettered access to the UK market. There is clearly a discrepancy there.
Finally—I had better stop because I could spend the whole of the afternoon on this one little instrument—my noble friend said in his introductory remarks, if I heard him correctly, that sanitary standard checks will continue to be made at the border. If we are doing those checks at the border, why on earth can we not do all the checks at one place on imports into this country?
I did say finally, but I did not mean finally. Will my noble friend commit to bringing forward an instrument on the question of equivalence at such time as he suggests that non-EU countries may come forward with imports? I think he said that there would be an instrument at that time. Can he confirm that that is indeed the case? I think he will understand from my drift that I do not like the instrument before us.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister referred to paragraph 10.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states that consultation
“was undertaken as a joint consultation with the Scottish Government and Welsh Government. Northern Ireland is not involved in these amendments, due to the effects of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.”
I declare an interest as a member of the House of Lords sub-committee that is scrutinising the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, and I have some questions in this regard. What does that mean in practice? Can eggs from GB be put on the market in Northern Ireland, and vice versa? Do these eggs have to be checked before they can be put on the market in Great Britain or Northern Ireland? That issue was raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Living in Northern Ireland, I am very well aware that Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury’s sell quite a lot of products that come from GB. What will the nature of these checks be? Where will they be carried out?
I support the protocol and believe in its sustainability, but perhaps the Minister can advise on progress in the ongoing negotiations on the protocol between the UK and the EU, with particular reference to the SPS arrangements. That was one of the “non-papers” from the EU in relation to this issue.
As this is a domestic statutory instrument, it falls to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee rather than our protocol committee to scrutinise it. What is the interaction between this statutory instrument and the protocol? Perhaps the Minister can give us some detail and clarity on that interaction and on the practical impact on the supply of eggs from GB to Northern Ireland and vice versa. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, eggs that travel from Northern Ireland to Britain enjoy unfettered access, so it would be good to get clarity on that.
It is important that the Government make a full analysis of the interaction of domestic primary and secondary legislation with the protocol. A lot of these statutory instruments come to us simply for information purposes, but we also get referred legislation from the EU that will affect and impact Northern Ireland on an ongoing basis. The Government have analysed the interaction of domestic primary and secondary legislation with the protocol. What has been done to ensure that that analysis takes place on an ongoing basis? If it is taking place, is it possible to publish the results and for a copy to be placed in the Library of both Houses?
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, we started out as an egg producer on our farm in Norfolk about 10 years ago. For the first few years, it was a reasonably profitable business, but as more farmers have come into the market that profitability has increasingly been reduced. It is all about supply and demand. As the number of producers has increased, margins have been squeezed. In the past few years, we have been seriously considering whether it is worth our while continuing in the business, but as we employ three local people and it is still just profitable, we have continued in the hope that egg prices will go up.
On the surface, these regulations look innocuous enough. They went out to consultation, and of the six respondents, who all look after the interests of UK food and egg producers, only one was prepared to agree with them. The other five argued that the checks should take place at the border. Many emphasised that this change should be reciprocated by the EU to benefit British egg producers and egg exporters. This has not happened—I do not know whether Defra even tried—so exports from the UK to Europe will be subject to the full range of EU checks and bureaucracy, thus raising the costs and reducing the competitiveness of our exports.
As things stand, these regulations will make things lopsided—or rather, one-sided—with EU imports of eggs into this country being exempt from checks, bureaucracy and costs at the border but our exports being fully subject to all the EU rules and costs. So no level playing field there then. To my mind, Defra has scored an own goal here in not supporting its own UK egg producers, who have the highest welfare standards in the world, while helping with the import of cheap, low-welfare eggs. Thanks a bunch. One has to wonder why.
After the initial consultation, Defra held a virtual meeting in September with the consultees, who were told—I find this unbelievable—that the Government want their support to facilitate importing cheap EU eggs to help feed the nation. You could not make it up. Here we have a Defra official asking the very bodies that look after the interests of UK food and egg producers to support flooding the UK market with cheap, low-standard foreign imports. With margins already tight, we egg producers need that like a hole in the head. No doubt the Government were concerned about the supply chain problems, the lack of HGV drivers and the prospect, circulated in the media, that there would be empty shelves in the supermarkets at Christmas, but here we have Defra saying that it wanted cheap imports of eggs and to hell with its own egg producers.
Defra went on to say that it wanted to ease the process, as border inspections would involve more time and costs for egg importers. As an egg producer, am I bothered? All these regulations will do is flood our market with cheap eggs and increase the pressure to reduce the price that we get, thus further squeezing our margins. I am told that, when the consultees explained to Defra that UK producers could easily produce enough eggs to feed the nation—we already produce 90% of our requirements—but that with these regulations they were going to be undercut by lower-standard, lower-cost imports, Defra responded by saying that the consultees were acting only in the interests of protecting UK producer profit margins. As an egg producer, I say, “What profit margins?” They are tight enough already.
Just whose side is Defra on? Quite clearly, it is not its UK food producers. The Government have a cheap food policy priority and an anti-producer, pro-consumer mentality that seems prevalent in Whitehall. Surely the Government, and a Tory one at that, ought to protect and promote their own food producers, which they expect to operate with ever-higher welfare standards, rather than to protect and promote cheap imports? The problem is that although we have a Defra Secretary of State, George Eustice, an Agriculture Minister, Victoria Prentis, and my noble friend Lord Benyon, who all have farming interests and all support British farming, we have a Government who do not.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, before I start, I want to register a complaint about this Room. Since 2013, I have sat on this side of the Room, previously being a Minister and chair of the FSA. I am fed up to the back teeth; that light up there has been flashing for over eight years. It does not affect people on the other side. I fully accept that you have to be pretty sensitive to it, but it has been like that for eight years and no one has done anything about it.
Having got that off my chest, I thank the Minister for bringing forward these regulations. I accept, as he said, that they are very narrow, but this is a golden opportunity to raise other issues relating to eggs, as has been the case. I agree entirely with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Some time, I would like the Minister to answer the point just made by the noble Lord: what is our latest self-sufficiency figure? I found a figure of 89% of imports, or £1.7 billion, and exports of only £315 million. It is not a big issue. I just wondered what it was.
People joked about egg fraud when I raised it as a Minister, but it is big business. We must take steps to stamp it out. I will give only a snapshot. In 2010, Mr Owen of Bromsgrove was fined £3 million and did three years inside. That case started while I was at Defra, from 2006 to 2008, because of the way it was tipped off. Some 100 million eggs were mis-sold due to mislabelling. The defence had the brass neck to argue that Owen was not the only person “creating mischief in the egg industry”. That is the kind of class act of barristers. That was the defence argument—a bit of mischief. Some 100 million eggs were mis-sold; basically, low-level stuff sold as free range.
In 2018—it has not gone away—there was payback of £500,000 and 30 months inside for Anthony Clarkson of Preston. Again, it was free-range egg fraud—buying barn eggs and selling them free range. There are plenty available. In February 2019, a Netherlands trader was convicted of selling eggs unfit for human consumption. The other thing is: can we trust the statistics on eggs? We are talking about big figures by definition. I regret to say that I have only just discovered that, from 1996, hopefully not until now, HMRC showed errors in its imports and exports of three times the real figure. For 2008, the claim was that 600,000 cases—a case is a lot of eggs, at least 360—were exported, but it turned out to be less than 200,000.
In February 2013, Defra reported that the UK imported 267,000 cases, but, in reality, it turned out to be 127,000 cases. The exports in the same year were given as 61,000 cases, but, in reality, it was only 16,000 cases. There is a brilliant graph of what HMRC was producing. I take exception to this because, at some point during that period, I would have answered Parliamentary Questions, both in 1997-99 and 2006-08, giving false information. I have never been informed about this; it has come about only because I was searching the web in preparation for this debate. I had no idea about the revised figures of this HMRC miscalculation. Quite a serious issue is: can we trust the figures that we are given?
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, this is all about the EU and Brexit. The EU’s export figures and documentation are brilliantly accessible, unlike ours. I gather that, in 2019, the EU exported to the UK 12,048 tonnes of eggs for consumption—I have dealt only with eggs for consumption; I have not dealt with eggs for food production or day-old chicks. That figure is down in 2021 to 7,358 tonnes. The UK exported almost a similar figure in 2019: we exported to the EU 11,022 tonnes. That is now down to 6,685 tonnes. The EU imports eggs from all over the world. I am not familiar with the sanitary checks at the ports or the others. We are facilitating food imports from the EU without lots of checks because we accept it; we trust it. If anything is going around and being marketed in the EU, then it is okay by us—that is what we said—and it is why we are not employing loads of people to go round the world checking on food production, which is what the EU was doing for us before Brexit. We are relying on the EU to do it for us. If it is okay for the EU, it is okay for the UK.
The EU imports eggs from around the world—and I mean around the world: from Ukraine, USA and Argentina. It also imports from China—I repeat, China: the equivalent of 1,348 tonnes of eggs in 2020. Other countries include North Macedonia, Albania, Norway, Switzerland, Kazakhstan and Bosnia-Herzegovina. How do we know that the eggs that we import from the EU are only from the 27 member states? If eggs are being moved around the EU—and let us not forget that many of them will come in unmarked; they will be marked in the EU—how do we know that we are not importing from outside the 27?
I would hate to think, for example, that we were importing eggs from China without any checks. We would not know whether they were produced via slave labour, which, as we know, the cotton pickers are in Xinjiang. Who is checking on this? There are some serious issues. In 2020, the EU exported to the UK 100,160 tonnes equivalent. The UK was the biggest destination of eggs from the EU. The next were Japan, with 68,163 tonnes, Israel, with 14,809 and Russia, with 45,378, so the UK was by far the biggest recipient of exported eggs from the EU, with Japan being the next.
Where are they coming from and how do we know? Those are legitimate questions for me, for regulators, for food producers, for customers and for supermarkets. A lot has been done to improve the standards of egg production in the UK—I fully accept that—but how do we know that eggs are coming only from the 27 EU member states? There are some serious issues here that the Minister will, I hope, be fully briefed to answer.
My final point concerns another aspect of this. The eggs that are coming in will not all be for consumption; some of them will be for food production. I picked up from Food Manufacture magazine concerns about the importing of eggs to the UK for use in “British” products—that is, as ingredients in pre-prepared foods. We use imported eggs. If the fact is that we are only 89% or 90% self-sufficient, that 10% represents a hell of a lot of eggs.
I understand that there is a petition asking UK supermarkets, although this is not their full responsibility, and food producers to stop such imports. There is a complete lack of transparency in the sourcing of egg products in such foods. Customers today are faced with eggs on the shelves in supermarkets with the British Lion brand and the name of the farm on them —great—but nobody knows where the eggs they are consuming in the pre-prepared foods they buy on the shelf next door come from, because there is a lack of transparency. They will certainly not all come from the UK as, by definition, they are imports. British Lion egg producers are quoted as saying:
“In recent years there have been a number of food safety issues associated with egg products produced in Europe and further afield.”
“Further afield” means outside of Europe. They go on:
“Using them also adds unnecessary food miles and does not meet the guaranteed, high standards provided by the Code of Practice for the production of Lion Quality Egg Products.”
What is the Minister’s view of the petition?
I have a soft spot for Defra and MAFF, having spent four years in total in both departments. It is the producers’ ministry; that is what I used to say when we were setting up the FSA. “We want the consumer to be looked at. Carry on being the producers’ ministry”, I used to say—but, listening to what the Minister said, it is no longer the producers’ ministry if its approach is to smash up the UK industry by saying that it wants lots of cheap imports. If that is its attitude on eggs, that will be the policy attitude on other foods and ingredients, which is what some of us said would happen before Brexit. We were constantly told by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, who was the Minister concerned—I must have a dozen cases of this in my files upstairs—that there would be no diminution in the quality of and food standards for imported food. That was repeated day after day, month after month, with great sincerity. Nobody is questioning the noble Lord’s sincerity but the reality is that the department is seeking to go back on that commitment. That is the only conclusion to draw in talking about cheaper food. Cheaper food comes about only because of less regulation, lower welfare conditions and worse pay and working conditions for workers. That is the only way it happens. It is what happens in this country, which is why we must be careful about the work of the gangmasters organisation.
The reality is that this is a good example. It is an egg. We all know what an egg looks like and what we can do with it. It is not so easy with other products, such as cuts of meat and grains; that is all too technical. The public understand that, if we as the public are being cheated on egg imports, how do we know we are not being cheated on other food imports when the ministry that is supposed to be looking after this and guarding the regulations is now hell-bent on trying to reduce standards? It is no good the Minister shaking his head; he has to give chapter and verse to answer exactly what his current department’s attitude is.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this short statutory instrument. I think it is the shortest statutory instrument I have ever had to speak to, but it has very important issues at its heart.
A small percentage of British eggs are exported, and these are only ever grade A eggs, according to the Explanatory Memorandum. The British egg industry is 89% self-sufficient and produces plenty of eggs for consumer needs. A very small percentage of eggs are imported. During the period when Covid-19 was at its peak, eggs were imported from Spain due to supply chain difficulties. It is essential that only grade A eggs are imported and important that there should be adequate checks on these eggs.
It is, of course, practical for these checks to be done at the packing centres where egg marketing inspectors are already carrying out visits. However, I would like reassurance that it would not be possible for imported eggs to enter the retail market without going through a packing centre. I presume that if eggs were checked at the border on the point of import it would be very difficult for them to go unchecked and enter the retail chain. Can the Minister say whether it would be possible for eggs to leave the point of import and avoid going through a packing centre?
There is also an issue with labelling. Eggs stamped with the Lion symbol are processed through exclusive Lion packaging centres that do not deal with imported eggs, as that is prohibited under the Lion scheme rules. The BEIC, which runs the Lion Quality scheme for egg production, owns the Lion Quality trademark and is obviously keen to protect its product.
Eggs entering the GB market and coming from countries that have equivalent standards to home-produced eggs are not labelled. However, eggs coming from countries that do not have equivalent standards are labelled “non-UK standard” or “non-EC standard” and with the country of origin. How confident can consumers be that this labelling is accurate?
I understand that these eggs are likely to be used for mass catering and retail. Given the small percentage of imported eggs—10%—it is likely that these eggs will end up being used for catering purposes—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. She will be aware that a Division has been called in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn—I am hesitating to say for 10 minutes, because I am not quite sure whether that is what has been agreed—for certainly no more than 10 minutes to allow noble Lords to register their votes.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, as I said, given the small percentage of imported eggs—10%—it is likely that they will end up being used for catering purposes. However, the consumer will not be informed that they are consuming products made with imported eggs. Given the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on the fraudulent labelling of eggs, is this a concern for the Minister?
The consultation carried out online received six responses, with one agreeing to the proposal and the other five expressing a preference for checks at the border. Could this poor response be due to the online nature of the consultation? Although it is practical for the checks to take place at packing centres, it is important to keep the industry on board. With only one in six producers content with the proposals, it seems as though the Government are riding roughshod over the egg-producing industry. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, referred to this, although she did not use those words.
The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that:
“a round table will be scheduled with industry”
to mitigate any concerns. Can the Minister say whether this round table has taken place yet and, if so, what the outcome of the discussion was? If it has not yet taken place, has a date been fixed in the future? Can he provide reassurance that the cost of checks will not fall on the egg industry? The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, referred to the costs involved. I am concerned to hear again from him that Defra is actively encouraging the import of cheap eggs. Why, given that GB is virtually self-sufficient in egg production?
Lastly, given that the Lion Quality assurance scheme accounts for 90% of GB egg production, can the Minister say how many packing centres are therefore likely to be dealing with imported eggs? The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, asked some very searching questions, and I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I am generally content with this SI.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI, and for the helpful briefing that he organised with officials beforehand. However, he will know that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn this SI to our attention. Like other noble Lords, partly arising from that, I have a number of questions.
Obviously, our main concern is to maintain our high animal welfare and food quality standards. Clearly, we can maintain those standards more easily if the eggs are produced within the UK. I am absolutely with the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, on that issue. Can the Minister remind us what percentage of class A eggs are currently being imported from the EU into the UK? We have heard some statistics today, but it would be helpful to have clarification from the Minister on that. Is it the case, as my noble friend Lord Rooker is saying, that third-country eggs are also coming to us via the EU? Is that standard practice? I think we should know more about this. Given that many of these procedures in the SI are about potential third-country egg producers coming direct to us in future, it would be helpful if the Minister could say whether he is aware that there are, in the sidelines, third-country producers awaiting some sort of green light to be able to sell into the UK market, and what the consequences might be.
That is just a general point. I now want to ask some specific questions—and the first question is about arrangements on the Northern Ireland border. In response to the question from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on this issue, Defra said that all eggs from Northern Ireland to GB would continue to have “unfettered access” to the UK market. Does that mean that there are no checks carried out on these eggs at all either at the border or at the so-called points of destination, or anywhere else?
Meanwhile, as I understand it, class A eggs going the other way—from GB to Northern Ireland—will continue to be checked at the border, as GB will have the status of a third country with regard to Northern Ireland. Those are the issues that my noble friend Lady Ritchie raised, and I agree with her: we need to know more detail on the practical application of how the rules will apply going in both directions. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify those arrangements under the terms of the protocol. Also, can he clarify how the outcome of the current negotiations on the Northern Ireland protocol between the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and the EU might impact on the regulation of imports to and from Northern Ireland in future? Will eggs be caught up with this, and is this an issue on its agenda for change?
Secondly, like other noble Lords, we share the concern expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the majority of respondents to the original Defra consultation were against the proposals in this SI. The Defra letter explains that a subsequent round table was held on 24 September. Stakeholders expressed concerns about whether imported eggs would be subject to the same standard of checks as domestic eggs and produced to the same high health, welfare and food standards. Rightly, my noble friend Lord Rooker raised issues about egg fraud, and he gave some shocking examples of it this afternoon. Clearly, we need to ensure that our consumers are not being mis-sold—and that is a concern that the stakeholders expressed at the meeting on 24 September.
What do the current checks on UK eggs entail? I do not quite see how we can differentiate between the sanitary provisions that the Minister was talking about and how they are marketed. I would have thought that the marketing is about the sanitary provisions, so the two should go hand in hand. Does the Animal and Plant Health Agency regularly and randomly visit UK poultry farms to check on animal welfare issues and on whether the birds are, for example, being reared organically? Does the same provision for checks on animal welfare et cetera also apply to imported eggs? Otherwise, how can we be sure that food standard equivalence is being applied?
The Defra response to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred to the APHA carrying out random checks on domestic and imported eggs at warehouses, distribution centres and packing centres, but this does not seem to include visits to where the birds are being reared, so how can we be assured that the high animal welfare standards included in the marketing of imported eggs can be trusted? This was an issue raised by a number of noble Lords. Obviously, this matters because descriptions such as “free range” or “organic” carry a premium price, so the temptation for some degree of fraud is obvious for all to see.
Once we have finished the 21-month transition period with the EU, what arrangements will be in place to check welfare standards on site for both EU and third-country egg producers? Will we go to see where the chickens are being reared and the eggs are being produced?
Thirdly, are all UK eggs currently produced distributed via warehouses and packing centres or do some go straight to market? This was the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I can imagine that there is a healthy trade in local eggs at farm shops and farmers’ markets or potentially in the restaurant sector, so how is the APHA monitoring the quality of eggs that do not go via those distribution centres? What would stop egg importers avoiding packing and distribution centres and therefore avoiding the checks? Could they also go straight to market or to some locality without going through the distribution centres?
Then there is the question of what happens at the ports. This issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Presumably the APHA is already doing other checks at ports and custom points on foodstuffs being imported; it is already there with the resources, so it would not be too much of a stretch to check egg imports as well, particularly as we have heard that the phytosanitary checks will still carry on at the ports. Therefore you could argue that it would be more efficient to inspect all those consignments together, so I wonder why we are not still planning on doing that.
Finally, I am trying to get to the root of this issue. Is it an issue about overall APHA staffing levels? Is this ultimately the issue? Is it about staff shortages? What level of vacancies is being carried by the APHA? What proportion of APHA staff were previously EU staff who have left and cannot be replaced? Is this an issue at the heart of the matter?
The most important aspect of this debate is the need to maintain our high animal welfare and food safety standards. I absolutely share the concern of stakeholders and noble Lords this afternoon that these proposals do not provide sufficient reassurance that we will be maintaining those same high standards. I hope the Minister will be able to provide further reassurance on this issue, and I look forward to his response.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I will endeavour to answer all the questions that have been asked.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh referred to the sentence in the Explanatory Memorandum that relates to whether we used the European Union (Withdrawal) Act powers for this statutory instrument. I can confirm that we did not. I think she and others also asked why, given that the egg sector opposes the proposal—or so it was deemed from five out of the six responses—the Government are moving ahead with it.
In response to the consultation, Defra and the Welsh and Scottish Governments held a round table, as has been said, on 24 September to address the concerns raised by the industry. Invited to the meeting were the checking authorities responsible for egg marketing standards checks across Great Britain—the APHA egg marketing inspectors, who operate in England and Wales, and the Scottish Government poultry officers. In response to concerns expressed by the industry that imported eggs should be subject to the same standard of checks as domestic eggs and produced to the same high health, welfare and food standards, Defra explained that the checks will continue to be made on a risk basis, as well as randomly, in line with Article 24.2 of Regulation 589/2008, and that food quality will not be impacted by this SI.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked about the nature of the survey, noting that it was online. All relevant industry representatives responded and were at the round table, so it is fair to say that a pretty full consultation has happened. She asked about UK exports to the EU. I can confirm that UK exports are checked at the border for both hygiene and marketing quality.
A number of noble Lords asked about resources at the APHA. This statutory instrument changes the current legislation, requiring marketing standards checks to take place at the border to allow the continuation of a current practice. We have the resources to do this now. I am quite open that, if we were not to pass this and require those checks to take place at the border, it would put considerable resource demands on the APHA. It would require a border control post to have a very large chilled space, so that every lorry that came in with its 28 pallets of eggs could be safely unpacked and those eggs moved into a chiller space. If they were not, they would risk deteriorating in quality, so that would have to take place. They would then have to be reloaded and taken to a distribution point where we had the resources to check them. I hope noble Lords remember this important point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, raised a very well-made point about the implications of this SI for Northern Ireland eggs entering the UK and whether they will be treated differently, with Northern Ireland continuing to follow EU rules. Eggs produced in Northern Ireland are not considered to be entering GB from a third country. The statutory instrument does not change the way eggs moved from GB to Northern Ireland will be checked. Northern Ireland eggs will continue to have unfettered access to the GB market, as at present, and will continue to be checked in the same way as domestic eggs from England, Scotland and Wales. In any case, the checks on third-country eggs are identical to those performed on domestic eggs. They will continue to be checked by egg marketing inspectors on a risk-assessed and random basis at the point of destination, at packing centres, at distribution centres and at wholesale premises.
I think she asked whether eggs from GB can be put on the market in Northern Ireland. Class A eggs imported into Northern Ireland from third countries will continue to be checked at the time of customs clearance and prior to their release for free circulation, in accordance with Article 24.3 of Regulation 589/2008, as it has effect in the EU. I think I have said whether eggs have to be checked before they can be put on the market in GB.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
On Northern Ireland, I mentioned the importance of a full analysis by Her Majesty’s Government of the interaction of domestic primary and secondary legislation with the protocol. I also asked what is being done to ensure that such analysis takes place and that, if it is taking place, a report could be placed in the Library of both Houses.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to raise this point, as others have done, about the ongoing negotiations around the Northern Ireland protocol. I do not feel qualified give an accurate, up-to-date report. After this Committee, I will find out whether there is going to be an immediate communication about the status of the Northern Ireland protocol and an analysis of its functioning, particularly in relation to this matter. If there is not, I will make sure that she receives more information. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised that as well.
I have answered quite a few of the questions—probably not every single one.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
The Minister has been very helpful; I fully accept that. I do not expect him to know the answer to this, but I hope that he will take my word for it that if any of us in this Room is wearing any cotton fabric or garment, it is possible using element analysis to find out where the cotton was grown. The same technique can be used to decide whether lamb was created in Wales or New Zealand. Does the technique of element analysis figure in any of the checks about where eggs have come from?
Lord Benyon (Con)
That is a very good point, and I will seek further information. I hope to reassure him and my noble friend Lord Cathcart that the idea that we are somehow allowing the import of substandard products that discriminate against our domestic producers is easily detectable through the measure that he mentioned which shows precisely how that egg is produced. I do not know whether it can deal with the point about fraud, or whether it can say, for example, that the egg came from Argentina or China, but this is a fresh food product, so obviously there is an issue about timing. I think that would militate some of the fraudsters who might want to try to enter the supply chain, but I assure the noble Lord that no undercutting of our producers will be facilitated by this measure or by my department in our determination to support the producers of this country. I really want to re-emphasise that point.
I hope that noble Lords fully understand the need for this instrument, which is to ensure that marketing standards checks on class A eggs imported from third countries continue to happen at the locations where they take place today. As I outlined in my opening speech, the instrument will also avoid any disruption to the level of checks that currently take place and will allow egg marketing inspectors to continue to uphold our high standards. I believe I have answered all the questions, but if I have not, I am very happy to provide written answers, I will check Hansard and respond in writing to any questions I may have missed.
Food (Promotion and Placement) (England) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
That the Grand Committee do consider the Food (Promotion and Placement) (England) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, obesity is seen as one of the biggest health problems this country faces. The latest national child measurement programme data from 2020-21 showed that around 40% of children leaving primary school were overweight or obese, with one in four living with obesity. Regular overconsumption of food and drink high in calories or the consumption of sugar and fat can lead to weight gain and, over time, obesity, which in turn has a significant impact on health and well-being and increases the risk of certain related diseases.
The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the impact that obesity can have on people’s health. Evidence from a University of Liverpool study shows that those who are overweight or living with obesity and who contract Covid-19 are more likely to be admitted to hospital and suffer worse complications. This measure is part of the Government’s healthy weight strategy, which we hope will contribute towards achieving the ambition of halving childhood obesity by 2030.
The instrument we are discussing today concerns the introduction of restrictions on promotions of less healthy products by volume price and location for retailers in England with 50 or more employees. Location restrictions will apply to store entrances, the ends of aisles, checkouts and their online equivalents—for example, home pages and payment pages. Volume price restrictions will prohibit retailers from offering promotions such as buy one, get one free or three-for-two offers on less healthy products.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will contribute virtually as the Liberal Democrat Front-Bencher at the appropriate point in the debate.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and the Government for the initiative, which I would describe as making tentative moves to try to reduce the growth of obesity. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Obesity, and I am grateful to the Obesity Health Alliance, which has recently produced a very wide-ranging and thorough examination of the problem. I am grateful to it for the briefing.
It is worth remembering that the last serious attempt to tackle this was after the coalition Government came into power in 2010-11, when an alcohol strategy was drawn up and there was an engagement between government and the private sector, and the many representatives of the health business, if I can describe it like that, who were anxious to see changes effected. We had the creation of the responsibility deal, which ran from 2011 through to 2015, when it collapsed. The health officials were unhappy about the way in which the agenda was being run, and in 2013 many of them withdrew because they felt that the private sector—the manufacturers and retailers—were controlling the agenda and that public health was rather lower down the line than profits. So it went in 2015, and since then we have had very little change, apart from a growth in obesity.
On the alcohol front, on which we have spoken from time to time, apart from with youngsters there continues to be a problem there, with more and more people going into hospital and more and more people dying from liver problems. The real concern here has been with the growth in obesity among youngsters. We have been at this since 2006, when the Labour Government first kicked it off with the national measurement scheme. Initially, the idea was that we would engage over a very wide area, but because of the continuing cuts that have taken place in public expenditure at local level, it has not really made a great deal of headway. We have had a fallow period, with many of us complaining over the years, but it would be churlish not to say that I welcome this move, although that is not to say that I am going overboard over what the Government are proposing.
I have a number of questions. It has taken us six years—seven years, really, since it will be 2022 by the time we finish the consultation with the parties involved and this is put into effect—but the document talks about waiting another five years to do a review. Unless I have misunderstood, it will be five years before it is fully reviewed again. Could you correct me if I am wrong or, if I am right, explain why we have to wait another five years, which means that we will have run from 2010 to 2027 before we really look at some of the serious proposals made by the Government?
Secondly, I would like to know who is covered by the square footage provision. Obviously, hypermarkets and supermarkets are covered, but I would like to know whether convenience stores are also covered. I live in Battersea, near the bridge, and next to us we have a local co-op that does extraordinarily good business. Would it qualify to be covered by the changes that are proposed? I cannot remember the figure, but it may be 1,200 square feet. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether convenience stores fall into it, because they are major retailers in this context as they sell nearly half as much as the supermarkets do. If they are not covered, it will be a major omission and something that we would want to return to.
Thirdly, I listen carefully to everything the Minister says as he finds his way with his new brief. At his first Questions, he talked about unintended consequences and said that it is very important when we are making changes that we try to foresee them. I am particularly interested in seeing how retailers effectively drive a coach and horses through so many areas of legislation with their ability to place their goods in a position which sells them best for them but on the other hand brings them to the attention of children, in particular.
Again, I mention my local Co-op. No longer can people see cigarettes. They are hidden. It took years to get that changed, but it is a worthy development that was put through by the Government. When I go in, I am now surrounded by alcohol. We have all this about advertising, thresholds and the rest of it, yet when children stand in the queue to buy their Mars bars in the Co-op, they are surrounded by alcohol and, on the other side, by doughnuts and a host of sweeties which are attractive to them and which, as we know, are at the heart of the growth of obesity. I wonder whether the Government have thought through what will go in place of the movement of some of these articles which are presently being sold, which have been identified as being very risky from a health point of view. If they do not cover it, I suspect we will find, for example, that alcohol goes there, which is what has happened previously. I know that is not about child obesity, but none the less it relates to obesity, as 10% of all obesity comes from the sugar in alcohol. So we are continuing with the same problem, especially given that we still do not have any indication on alcohol. You queue there, and there is no indication of the sugar content or the calorific effects in the drinks. Perhaps the Minister might say what the Government are intending to do about that. I know it is not in this document, but it is all interrelated with obesity, and we cannot separate it too much.
In another initiative, trying to be as positive as I can be with the Committee, Sir Keith Mills, who was responsible for Air Miles and Nectar points, has been doing a special piece of work for the Prime Minister and has come up with a number of trials. Is there a correlation between the work that will be put in place in this document and what he is endeavouring to do in incentivisation? I may sound negative, but I believe in incentives to encourage people to eat and drink better and I believe in trying to find incentives in which the private sector, particularly retailers, will not to try to take advantage but will work together so that we will see positive incentives offered to them to effect changes in the formulation of food and the way in which they present drink and food in retailing terms. Is there a link between the activities he is undertaking?
Finally, can we see more experimentation? I am very pleased that Sir Keith Mills is doing that. Wherever we can try to engage with those who are interested in the private sector, we should try to get joint working taking place where, if the Government see it works yet the private sector does not want it, they will do what they are doing today. I hope they will stick to their guns, legislate and make the changes stick rather than change their mind and run away under pressure from the industry.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his clear and succinct explanation of these regulations and of the risks of obesity, which we have witnessed a great deal during the Covid crisis. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, then spoke about the APPG’s work on obesity.
I probably should register an interest. Although I no longer have direct food sector interests, I have shares in Tesco. In fact, I recall that it moved early in banning sweets from checkouts, but obviously it will incur costs from these regulations. I also have shares in Amazon, which, I suspect, could benefit from a shift online as a result of the regulations, which probably bear less heavily on online.
Forgive me for a brief diversion, but I was absolutely delighted to see that the regulations were made under the Food Safety Act. The passage of that Act was one of my proudest achievements as a civil servant. In fact, I supported the late Baroness Trumpington, whom I miss so much; she even gave me a toy pig for my baby, which has now been passed on to the next generation.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the Minister for his introduction to these regulations. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, as chair of the APPG on obesity, were particularly helpful.
These regulations sit behind recently revealed alarming figures showing that nearly a quarter of children are overweight or obese when they start primary school. That figure has risen to a third by the time they leave at 11. The Government are right to be concerned about the overconsumption of food and drink high in calories, sugar and fat, which leads to obesity and associated obesity illnesses. I will come on to the regulations shortly, but from these Benches we want to make two other comments.
First, the Conservatives in government have consistently cut public health budgets to local authorities over the last six years. The King’s Fund says that, on a like-for-like basis, the 2019-20 budget is 15% less than that of 2013-14, including a more than 5% cut to obesity services. In addition, the reduction in school nurses as well as health visitors over the last decade has meant that some of the vital early face-to-face advice on nutrition to parents of young children has gone.
Worse, some of the excellent work done by chefs such as Jamie Oliver and by the campaign of Henry Dimbleby—both of whom over the years encouraged much healthier eating in schools—has been reduced if not lost. In fact, recent reports say that high-fat, high-carbohydrate foods such as the dreaded turkey twizzler are re-emerging on to school menus.
The second issue from these Benches is the decline in fitness of our primary school children. This has been a long-standing problem, but the sale of playing fields and focus in the curriculum on core subjects have all led to a reduction of time when children can exercise, take up sports and essentially get the habit early, which will also impact on their weight. This January, Sport England noted that children’s activity levels were down in 2019-20—pre pandemic—with only 44% of children and young people meeting the Chief Medical Officer’s guidelines on taking part in sport and physical activity for an average of 60 minutes a day. Now is the perfect time, as restrictions have been relaxed, to increase the time that young children can undertake sports and exercise. Can the Minister say what influence the Department of Health and Social Care has with the Secretary of State for Education in remedying this matter and what plans there are to fund more opportunities for young children to participate in sport and exercise?
Turning to the regulations, I note that this follows a decade of trying to encourage large supermarkets to reduce salt and sugar in their own direct products, as well as encouraging their suppliers to reformulate. However, not all of them have achieved enough, nor have they changed their attitudes towards promotions.
If the Grand Committee will permit me an anecdote, one of my adult children used to work as a buyer for a major supermarket, and its department had been asked to go back to suppliers to ask them to reduce sugar, salt and fat. My son was responsible for, among other things, dairy products. Most products and many suppliers were happy to work with the supermarket to achieve reductions, but both sides were completely stumped by one product: brandy butter. It has not just sugar and fat, but alcohol too. On this occasion, it was agreed there was very little they could achieve, other than to highlight its very red traffic light and recognise that it was a truly seasonal product that was not part of people’s everyday habits. But it is good they were thinking about it.
While the public health responsibility deal has improved matters a little bit, it is not nearly enough. One key area remains obvious. That is the influence of promotions targeted at children and their parents, both in store and on television. Other speakers have referred to multibuys, end-of-carousel promotions and queuing eye-catchers—far too often, junk food and sweets. While the public health responsibility deal has helped a bit in those larger supermarkets, it is certainly not enough, and it is good that healthier choices will be much more visible in shops and that buy one, get one free and three-for-two offers on high fat, sugar and salt products will be restricted.
On food scope, it was worrying to read in the past few days that a high level of juice in baby and toddler food, which has a very high fructose content, is not labelled as high sugar because the juice is natural and not added, processed sugar. Most parents of babies and small children believe that such products are not high in sugar. Surely, this needs to be added to the formulation list for HFSS products. Is the department looking at this?
It is right that environmental health food authorities should be responsible for enforcing this in localities, but I ask, as others have, whether there will be extra funding for environmental health to be able to carry this out. We need to remember that members of environmental health have many other responsibilities too, including the vital role during the pandemic of test and trace, working with local resilience forums. The Government cannot keep loading extra responsibilities on to beleaguered local authorities without funding them properly. Will there be funding for this for the enforcement bodies?
From these Benches, we regret that the food sector has not responded well enough to remove the need for this regulation, but we believe that the long-term health implications for our children are being damaged by current custom and practice. But this cannot be done without other actions too: funding more sport and exercise opportunities and funding enforcement are just two critical elements. The minimum of another five years to implementation, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, is too slow. Can the Minister please ensure that these changes are speeded up?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate the intent behind these regulations and thank the Minister for his introduction to them. I want to comment on the current situation and raise a number of questions following on from those that we have already heard, because I feel that it is the detail of the regulations that is wanting rather than what they are about.
To emphasise the points that have already been made in this debate and have been heard in your Lordships’ House on many occasions, the UK has among the highest childhood obesity rates in western Europe. One in four children is overweight or obese when starting primary school, and the number is one in three by the time a young person gets to secondary school. These children are obviously more likely to become obese adults—let us remind ourselves that, at present, one in four adults is obese—and therefore at greater risk of conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, fatty liver disease, cancers and mental ill-health. As we know, the situation is worse in poorer communities. Indeed, one in three adults in the most deprived areas is obese, compared with one in five in the least deprived—a clear inequality if ever we saw one. The discrepancy among children is even more alarming: more than twice as many children are obese in the most deprived communities as in the least, and that gap has nearly doubled under this Government.
There is no doubt that in-store promotions are incredibly effective in influencing what we buy. Research shows that we buy 20% more than we intended when faced by promotions. Cancer Research UK has shown that greater volumes of high fat, sugar and salt are likely to be purchased by those who are already overweight or living with obesity, so we see a correlation between promotions and obesity, and it is right that these regulations seek to tackle that. So, yes, it is right to take action to address this situation, not by limiting people’s freedom of choice but instead by supporting them to make healthier choices.
However, these regulations alone will not be enough, and it is this point that I want to emphasise to the Minister. We need a radical obesity strategy that goes much further, ensures that families are able to access healthy food and supported local leisure facilities, and ensures that poverty can be tackled. Without that, there will be no levelling up. All we will see is a continuing widening of the already considerable gap between those who have the means to manage their weight and those who do not.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I start by thanking noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate. I shall try to turn to some of the questions from noble Lords and to answer as many as possible in the next three hours, if noble Lords will be patient with me. [Laughter.] Seriously, if I do not touch on a particular question, please write to me to follow up, particularly on some of the more technical questions.
I start with some of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. He asked about the scope. Stores smaller than 185.8 square metres or 2,000 square feet—if you are wondering why such an unround number was chosen in metric—and specialist retailers that sell one type of food product category, such as chocolatiers or sweet shops, will be exempt from location restrictions but will need to adhere to the volume price restrictions. The policy will come into force in October 2022. The noble Lord referred to issues that I am always interested in, which are the evidence, as well as the impact, and how we look at the unintended consequences of any such moves. There will be a review within three—
Lord Kamall (Con)
The policy will be reviewed within three to five years of it coming into force. I reassure the noble Lord that the intention is that the policy will come into force in October 2022. However, as the noble Lord and I have discussed in the past, I am always concerned about unintended consequences and evidence to see what has worked and what has not. In many ways, I am a fan of the discovery process. We do not have complete knowledge—in fact we have incomplete knowledge—and all we can do is trial and see what works and use the best evidence that we can to assess.
Part of this review of the regulatory framework provisions of the restrictions will consider whether penalties under the Regulatory and Enforcement Sanctions Act 2008 have been implemented effectively and achieve their ambitions. We will continue to keep the policy under review to ensure that it is both impactful and proportionate. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is not sufficient just to pass a piece of legislation and hope it does its job. In fact, as I think many noble Lords would acknowledge, this in itself is not enough to tackle obesity. It has to be a multi-angled view with many different approaches. Some will work, some will not, but we have to learn from what works and make sure that we are not driving consumers into unintended consequences and leading them to worse health outcomes.
We hope that this strategy that we published in 2020 will be world leading. I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned Sir Keith Mills and his programme. This shows that it is not just this piece of legislation; it is a multichannel approach, if you like, including incentivising people to have healthier lifestyles —monitoring their steps and other exercise functions. Anyone who has looked at successful and unsuccessful diets will recognise the fact that it is not just about reducing what you take in; it is also about burning off those calories. We have to get the right balance. Each individual will have different BMIs and different physiologies and different strategies will work for different individuals.
In terms of the businesses that these regulations will impact, the location and volume restrictions apply only to medium and large businesses in England and around 24% of stores are in scope of the volume price restrictions. Given the size threshold for stores subject to location restrictions, these apply to approximately 16% of stores in England. Some 94% of estimated food retail revenue falls under the volume restrictions, while 84% falls under location restrictions. This means that these restrictions offer considerable potential, if done correctly, while ensuring that small businesses are not disproportionately impacted by the changes. I acknowledge that many noble Lords were concerned about the cost for both large and small businesses.
The original timescale was to be April 2022, but having considered feedback from the industry, we have made the decision to extend the implementation to October 2022. I am well aware that some in the industry are asking for a further extension and, as noble Lords can recognise from the tone of the debate today, some are in favour and some are against and the Government are trying to get the right balance. The Government want to bring in these measures so we can start analysing whether they work. We are also very mindful of the fact that it falls on industry to implement them.
The other issue raised was about smaller stores and what are called symbol groups, which, as noble Lords may understand, are smaller retailers that come under a wider brand. If we excluded symbol groups in their entirety, that would take away some of the health benefits of the policy. Franchises and symbol groups make up about 60% of those in scope of the volume price promotions and 14% of the location restrictions. Approximately only 12% of symbol group stores are over 2,000 square feet, therefore the vast majority of these stores will be exempt from the location restrictions. I hope noble Lords understand the point about the cost falling particularly disproportionately on smaller stores.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It would be very helpful if, in responding to those questions and proposing the guidance, my noble friend the Minister could make a copy available, perhaps in the Library, to those of us who are interested in understanding because I do not think that this is the end of the era on this issue; I think we will revisit it again and again in various different ways.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend makes a very reasonable demand that is difficult for me to refuse. Let me put it this way: I hope that I have not caused any shock waves, as it were.
There has been an impact assessment, which shows that the location restrictions over the 25-year appraisal period are expected to bring health benefits of more than £57 billion and provide NHS savings of more than £4 billion. The volume price restrictions are expected to accrue health benefits of more than £2 billion and provide NHS savings of £180 million. We recognise that there will be costs to businesses; once again, this is all part of that difficult balance and debate. A phrase I have often heard is, “Do not let perfection be the enemy of progress”. We want to try as hard as possible to get this right. From the consultation that has been going on, we are very aware that this will have an impact on a number of businesses but, at the same time, there is lots of pressure, as noble Lords will have heard today, just to get on with it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt again, but £57 billion is a much bigger figure than I have seen anywhere; £3 billion, perhaps separately, I could understand. It is really helpful to have the impact assessment but it is difficult to understand what the benefits and costs are, which we need to understand to give my noble friend the Minister the full support that he requires.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Once again, I thank my noble friend for making that request. I always make it clear that it is important that we publish as much evidence as possible and let it be challenged; that is part of a healthy debate. If things do not work as intended, we should see what works and what does not. I am always very sensitive when someone says, “the evidence suggests”. We need to have that challenge but also make sure that we know what works. At the end of the day, we all want to see less obesity across our country, so surely it is important that we make sure that the evidence is there. Where something does not work, we will just have to try other ways.
On compliance, it is for local authorities to decide how best to enforce the requirements. Where an enforcement officer suspects that HFSS food or drinks may be inappropriately promoted, they should request further information to verify. If the product is in scope and has been promoted contrary to the law, an enforcement officer will consider what action should be taken.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the Minister; it is generous of him to give way. I would be very interested in how he sees the greater responsibility on local authorities. Picking up my question again, does he feel that local authorities are resourced suitably? Can they expect some recognition of this new and extremely important role, because the regulations require their co-operation too?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. The Government are committed to ensuring that enforcement is proportionate and fair, and we intend to support local authorities and the judicial system on additional costs incurred as a result of enforcing the policy. Up front, I cannot say what those costs will be, but we want to understand what they will be to help enforcement.
I was asked whether we had watered down the policies for some products. We have excluded some products that are not among the highest sugar or calorie contributors to children’s diets or are not heavily promoted, but we will continue to keep the policy under review.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about weight management and other ways of tackling weight issues, including exercise. In March 2021, we announced an extra £100 million for healthy weight programmes to support children, adults and families in achieving and maintaining a healthy weight.
On infant foods, we will shortly consult on proposals to improve the marketing and labelling of commercial food and drink products for infants and young children. I acknowledge many of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked why we are using secondary legislation. The different legislative approaches being pursued reflect the current legislative framework and implementation routes available to the Government. For the promotion restrictions, we used existing powers in the Food Safety Act 1990 to lay secondary legislation before Parliament in July 2021. The statutory instrument has been subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure.
On how we look at issues of inequality, noble Lords made a very fair point. Perhaps I may be so bold as to suggest that one issue for people I talk to in many of the communities that we are supposed to be reaching out to is that, for far too long, the public health industry has been dominated by white middle-class people who feel they know better than immigrant and working-class communities. It is really important that we understand those communities. As someone who comes one of the communities that have been patronised, I recognise that we have to make sure that we work with them and do not just sit in a place like this and assume that we know better. It is important that we really understand them. What is really good about the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is that “disparities” are on the label, on the tin, which means that we have to look at how we address them.
There were some questions about why smaller businesses are exempt. I hope that I have answered them.
On people not being able to afford to eat a healthy diet, anyone who has watched daytime TV will know that some of those programmes can show you how to cook a meal very quickly and much more cheaply than is the case with many of the convenience foods that you can buy. The problem is how we translate that from the TV and entertainment to people’s lives in reality. In many ways, it means understanding families, where the decisions are made and what they have access to in many of their communities. Anyone who has been to many of the immigrant communities, for example, will know that there are plenty of shops that sell and openly display fresh food, but how do we make sure that we translate that into healthy diets?
On their own, these regulations will not be enough. We also have to look at how we translate all this into understanding people’s lives right at the family and the community level. It is our goal to improve children’s health and to reduce obesity. The shopping environment plays a vital role in the way products are marketed to us—for example, the pumping out of the smell of fresh bread from bakeries. We know that marketing people are experts in understanding consumer behaviours, with factors such as the location of products at the end of aisles affecting what we buy. The Government are committed to getting the right balance between stopping bad practice and working constructively with industry. We also want to evaluate the evidence of the restrictions once the policy is implemented.
We believe that retailers can play a vital role in creating a healthier food environment that does not promote the overconsumption of less healthy products. The Government hope that these regulations will enable us to achieve a healthier food environment and make progress to halving childhood obesity by 2030, and allow us all to live longer lives in good health. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
Charities and Civil Society: Ministerial Responsibility
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of including charities and civil society within the remit of a Minister who is also responsible for sport, tourism and heritage on the level of ministerial attention charities and civil society will receive.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as president of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, we greatly value the important role that charities and civil society groups play, and work across government to support them as they do so. This includes in the areas of sport and heritage where, as in so many others, charities and volunteers play a crucial part. Aligning those ministerial responsibilities creates a real opportunity for an innovative and collaborative approach to growing the sector’s contribution. My honourable friend is committed to his brief and will ensure that charities and civil society organisations benefit from significant attention.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reassurances, but research by the commission on civil society showed that ministerial engagement with the social sector is significantly lower than engagement with business, despite the huge contribution made by that sector in the Covid crisis, as the Minister acknowledged. In the absence of a dedicated Minister, will the Government consider returning to a system of having nominated civil servants in every government department, not just DCMS, responsible for engagement with civil society, as was the case some years ago, when I chaired the advisory body for the third sector set up by a previous Government?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, with 170,000 registered charities in England alone, it would of course be impossible for any or all Ministers to speak to every charitable organisation that does such important work. It is a duty for all Ministers in the roles they perform. In my portfolio, I have already in my weeks of office had the pleasure of working with the Music for Youth organisation and the Intermission Youth Theatre, and I know that ministerial colleagues across government take very seriously the role that civil society organisations play, not least my honourable friend, with his specific responsibilities.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
I declare my interests as set out in the register, with particular reference to the Harris (Belmont) Trust and Rochester Cathedral. Does my noble friend agree that within whichever department charities sit, the role of their volunteers is paramount? What measures can the Government take to facilitate their rapid return after the pandemic to both charities and those other organisations where volunteers fulfil a vital need, such as special constables in the police force? Will he also give an opinion on whether the position of volunteers could be included on future census forms?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Government recognise the vital importance of volunteering and its wide-ranging benefits, not just to the organisations for whom people volunteer but for individuals themselves. We know that, during the pandemic, volunteers have had to make adjustments or pause their volunteering and we are very grateful to them for adapting as they have. My honourable friend is seeking to learn from the new approaches developed in the pandemic. We have launched a new volunteering futures fund, through which £7 million will be made available to improve the accessibility of volunteering in the arts, culture, sport, civil society and many other sectors. On the point about the census, it was included in the 2018 White Paper published by the Minister for the Constitution. It was rejected by the Office for National Statistics, but DCMS’s community life survey captures people’s volunteering.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, as has been mentioned, voluntary and community associations have had an enormous impact on health and well-being during the Covid pandemic. There are several important organisations. I think of those such as C2, Connecting Communities, the Health Creation Alliance and others which support and develop those organisations. Will the department engage with the Department of Health and Social Care to support and develop those enabling organisations, as well as the sector more generally?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is of course a former Health Minister, and the new Health Secretary is a former Culture Minister, so the insights that each have gained in their respective departments will, I know, be brought to their work. My honourable friend the Minister works with a range of groups—charities themselves but also sector representatives— including through round table meetings.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the voluntary and community sector deservedly gained a high profile during the pandemic, particularly as so many people responded to the call to volunteer at a time of national need. What assessment has the Minister made of the effectiveness of government machinery in harnessing that activity to support the sector? With all due respect to existing ministerial efforts and responsibilities, does he feel that there is a case to be made for a full-time Minister who will work across Whitehall and beyond to ensure focus on this?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to point to the fantastic work that volunteers did during the pandemic. The Government stood by them with support, including an unprecedented £750 million package specifically for charities, social enterprises and the voluntary sector, and my honourable friend, with his responsibilities, is the champion for the sector in government.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I must remember to declare my interests. Does the Minister agree that having one Minister in the smallest department in government, who is covering dozens of other subjects, does not exactly instil confidence? Also, if they are not going to have a powerful enough Minister, when will we get an idea about a coherent strategy throughout government for dealing with the charitable and voluntary sector, which is simply too big to ignore?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is not being ignored. Ministers in every department, big and small, work with a range of charitable and civil society organisations and greatly value the work that they do. This is not something just for DCMS, but my honourable friend, with his responsibilities, is the Minister with specific focus on championing them and ensuring that across government we are giving the sector the support it needs, such as I have mentioned.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Does my noble friend agree that there is some sense in combining these responsibilities, as, for example, in the case of the British Paralympic Association, an excellent sport organisation and an excellent charity? Does he also agree that in our honourable friend Nigel Huddleston we have a Minister with the talent and tenacity to make a stunning success of his new portfolio?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I certainly agree with my noble friend and thank him for that. He is right to point out that the briefs of civil society and sport have been combined before to great effect, and right to point to the fantastic organisations that work at increasing people’s participation in sport and physical activity through charitable and civil society groups.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of Beacon Collaborative, a charity dedicated to promoting philanthropy. As has been said, Covid highlighted not only the importance of civil society but how fragile its sustainability and financial resilience are. Does the Minister agree that the growth of philanthropy is very desirable to increase support for civil society and, if so, can he tell us what the Government are doing to enable greater giving and philanthropy? Is he confident that the current ministerial arrangements are sufficient to support civil society and the growth of philanthropy, and to gain insights into the needs and values of the sector?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to point to the huge importance of philanthropy in supporting the groups, and to the fantastic work that they do across the country. In addition to the support that the Government gave from the taxpayer, we are keeping a close eye on the health of the sector as it emerges from the pandemic. I am glad to say that the work of the Charity Commission shows that only 1% of charities foresee a critical threat to their survival in the next 12 months. However, we continue to keep a close eye on them.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, what worries me is the way we are trying to overload the responsibilities of one particular Minister. I think of the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations. I think it should be the Minister for Inter-Gove-rnmental Relations, because he already looks after housing, communities and levelling up. Let us give him Scotland, Wales and England. It is nonsense. Is it not only overworking somebody who does a good job in many ways but denying the younger and newer generation experience at that level to take over major government responsibilities at some time? What are the Minister and the Government thinking about in this sort of situation?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Minister with responsibility for civil society is my honourable friend Nigel Huddleston, not my right honourable friend Michael Gove, though, as I say, all Ministers across government work with the third sector in the important work they do. I also point out that responsibility for the voluntary sector and volunteering in the Welsh Government is held by two people who combine that with responsibilities for welfare reform, fuel poverty, fire and rescue services, domestic abuse, youth justice, community safety and much else.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. As has been said, volunteers have always played an incredible role in British life. I think of the Olympics, the Paralympics, the ongoing Covid pandemic and the tireless efforts of millions of everyday people across the country. Does my noble friend agree that more can be done to harness and galvanise the spirit of volunteering by introducing a framework that links a volunteer’s voice within and across national and local government, and a volunteer champion to protect and recognise achievements, to stand up for their views and interests, and to help order the future functioning of volunteering? Will my noble friend therefore consider appointing a commissioner for volunteering to support the sector and give it the status that it so richly deserves?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Government highly value the contribution of volunteers across the whole of society. We witnessed the huge difference they can make during the pandemic, as well as in the examples my noble friend raised. Volunteers are represented in discussions with government by a variety of sector representatives and bodies, but I will take her interesting suggestion back to my honourable friend the Minister and discuss it. I have also pointed to the volunteering futures fund, which the Government have announced to support more people to volunteer and play their important role.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Zimbabwe: Makomborero Haruzivishe
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Zimbabwe about (1) the continued detention of opposition politician Makomborero Haruzivishe, and (2) political repression in that country.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Zimbabwe.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the UK remains concerned about the political situation in Zimbabwe. We regularly urge the Zimbabwean Government to live up to their own constitution by ensuring that the opposition, civil society and journalists are allowed to operate without harassment, and that due legal process is respected. The Minister for Africa reinforced these messages when she met President Mnangagwa on 1 November. Our embassy is also in touch with Mr Haruzivishe’s lawyers as we await the outcome of his appeal.
Lord Oates (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, yet despite the Government’s efforts, MDC youth leader Mako Haruzivishe remains incarcerated and the political and human rights situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate. In the light of this, do the Government agree that regional leaders have a critical role to play in encouraging the Zimbabwean Government to respect human rights and the rule of law? Can the Minister tell the House what discussions the Government have had at ministerial level with the Government of South Africa and the newly elected Zambian Government in this regard?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s role on the APPG. He is of course right that it is important that regional Governments have a role to play. In this regard, we have engaged directly at the highest level with the South African Government and we continue to engage with other regional partners, as well as regional associations, including the African Union, on this priority.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, in the Government’s view, which country has the clout to bring effective pressure on Zimbabwe on political oppression? We probably have less influence than China, which is most unlikely to bring any such pressure. Zimbabwe’s conduct clearly tarnishes the image of the whole region. Is this recognised by its neighbours, particularly South Africa, and are they playing a positive role in this regard?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord’s final question is that we are engaged very much with South Africa and, yes, it wants to see a progressive, inclusive Zimbabwe as part of the region and the wider world. Zimbabwe holds ambitions to join the Commonwealth as well. It is a collective effort. I do not think that one country alone can influence the progression and inclusiveness of democracy. It is therefore important that we, together with key partners, continue to play this role.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
In response to the last element of what the Minister indicated, Zimbabwean press promoted the fact that President Mnangagwa met our Prime Minister and the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth in Glasgow at COP 26. As the Minister is also the Minister for the Commonwealth, can he say whether we are making clear that, while we want the Commonwealth to be inclusive and open to Zimbabwe being a member, the conditions of a free and fair political system and the restoration of the 2013 constitution and the rule of law are essential criteria for membership and rejoining the Commonwealth?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord; those points are being made. On the COP engagement, it was the Minister for Africa, my honourable friend Vicky Ford, who met with the President of Zimbabwe.
Lord Flight (Con)
The British Government have already expressed their concerns over the continued incarceration of a pro-democracy activist and MDC Alliance youth leader, who has now been released on bail having been in jail for 202 days for allegedly inciting public violence when he whistled at Harare’s busy Copacabana terminus. This is despite the fact that he has filed an appeal against both conviction and sentence in the High Court. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, has advised that the British Government and embassy in Harare are in touch with his lawyers while awaiting the outcome of his appeal. The UK regularly urges the Zimbabwe Government to meet their international and domestic obligations by respecting the rule of law and the freedoms enshrined in the Zimbabwean constitution. What else might be effective?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out that our ambassador is engaged directly in raising various human rights issues, including the case he mentioned, and will continue to do so. What more can we do? We continue to work with key partners on ensuring that human rights are upheld according to the constitution.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
What representations have Ministers made to the Zimbabwe Government about the continued suspension of by-elections in Zimbabwe? Several dozen are outstanding.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my honourable friend Vicky Ford had various points of discussion on the broader human rights agenda with the President. We continue to engage in the capital on the issues the noble Lord raises.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the simple fact is that the messages from the UK Government are not being heard by the Zimbabwean Government, and certainly not being acted on. Just over a year ago, I raised with the Minister the Government’s strategy for working with civil society groups in Zimbabwe to defend human rights. I specifically asked whether the Foreign Office would
“work with the TUC and its international affiliates to ensure that we support workers who are organised in Zimbabwe to defend their own human rights.”—[Official Report, 27/10/20; col. 125.]
The Minister at the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, outlined the support we were giving to civil society groups. She also promised to follow through on meeting with the TUC. Has that meeting taken place? What is the outcome? What support are we giving to those sorts of civil society groups in Zimbabwe?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I do not believe the specific meeting took place directly with the TUC. We certainly have been meeting in Harare with various unions, including teaching unions, most recently in September 2021 on salaries and the impact of Covid-19. Trade unions form an important part of civil society in any country, and we engage with them at all levels.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that last week the Zimbabwe cabinet signed off on the patriot Bill, which would make it a criminal offence for anyone to criticise President Mnangagwa and for any member of the opposition to speak to any foreign Government in a negative way about Zimbabwe? At a time when Zimbabwe is considering rejoining the Commonwealth, can the Minister make it clear that our Government will support this only when the rule of law is restored and freedom of speech and political freedoms are protected?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord has articulated the position of Her Majesty’s Government very well, and those principles will apply.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister outline what discussions Ministers have had with their Commonwealth counterparts about the continuing political repression in Zimbabwe and about the need to build local economies and political democracy?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we continue to engage with Commonwealth partners on a range of issues concerning human rights. On the specific question of Zimbabwe rejoining the Commonwealth, we are clear that we would only support readmission to the Commonwealth if Zimbabwe met the admission requirements. We continue to articulate that in relation to fundamental human rights to our Commonwealth partners as well.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Zimbabwe will only become a democracy when the people have a genuinely free and fair election. We have seen that recently in Zambia. Can the Minister go further and actually say what more could be done to get Zambia and other countries within SADC to put the pressure on Zimbabwe? It has to come from those countries. We can help, but we must make sure that they do their bit so that we can get back to a situation where the people of Zimbabwe genuinely have a free and fair election in 2023.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness: she is quite right to say that. SADC and other organisations—including, more broadly, the AU—have a key role to play and must lead on these discussions, as people want to see an inclusive, progressive Zimbabwe. Within Zimbabwe, we must see rights restored, constitutions respected and human rights—which includes the rights of other political parties to participate fully in the democratic process—guaranteed. Those will form part of our current and future discussions with key partners.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, the US embassy in Zimbabwe has issued some devastating reports on conditions in prisons in that country, including ill-treatment of activists, violence against women and rape. Does the UK embassy confirm these reports? Can he confirm the continuing harassment of Hopewell Chin’ono, who is a highly respected figure, as reported by the American Bar Association?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Earl’s final point on the case of Mr Chin’ono, yes, we are very much engaged on that particular case. I have not seen the details of the report to which he referred, so if I may, I will write to the noble Earl in that respect.
Isles of Scilly: Ships
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether their award of £48 million from the Levelling Up Fund to the Council of the Isles of Scilly for the purchase of new ships requires the Council to demonstrate value for money by arranging competitive tenders for the (1) procurement, (2) construction, and (3) operation, of the ships.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Council of the Isles of Scilly submitted a full application, which included an economic and a commercial case. The Department for Transport reviewed these documents through a detailed assessment process, including assessing the value-for-money of the application. The process is set out in the fund’s technical and explanatory notes. Officials from the DfT will be writing to the Council of the Isles of Scilly to set out further business-case requirements.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. However, she did not say whether the council would be required to go out to tender for the supply of the ships or operating the service. At the moment, the application is to give the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company—the monopoly supplier of services—a free gift of something like £48 million to operate a service, with no conditions. Does she think that is the normal way to conduct public sector financial business?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord that, of course, the current status of the bid is that it is in its very early stages. As I said, we will be writing to the sponsor setting out further requirements for the business case. By the time this comes for ministerial sign-off, we will have had not only an OBC but also an FBC, and it will be done with the five different businesses cases. That would be normal, according to the Treasury rules. It will be a very rigorous process, during which we will, of course, assess the commercial elements of the bid. The noble Lord should just follow the process carefully; the bid would appreciate his support and guidance in getting it through the government systems.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I like ships. Notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, says, I am delighted that a ship will be provided by some means for the Scilly Isles; it is very much needed. We are still awaiting the refreshed national shipbuilding strategy—we have been waiting rather a long time—but this will presumably be encompassed within that. Will the ship be built in the UK with UK steel? Appledore shipyard, for example, which is very close by, is ready to do the build; we have a lot of shipyards waiting for this work. Will the Government ensure that it meets the very highest standards as a green ship? In that context, we should make it the very best ferry in the world because there are opportunities for sales. Can we please not make a complete pot mess of this, as the Scottish Government have of the ferries that they have been trying to get?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that I like boats too.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I said that on purpose. It is the case that there will be a proper and correct procurement process that goes alongside this money. It is a significant amount of money and, as it is so significant, the Government will be keeping a close eye on the procurement strategy.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has still not confirmed that high environmental standards will be required. I would welcome her doing that. “Scillonian III” is 44 years old, so these replacements will be built for the long term; they must be of the highest environmental standards. Will those standards also be imposed on onshore infrastructure servicing not just these ships but the many small boats that use the Isles of Scilly?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Yes, the Government are keen to uphold the highest environmental standards. This is one of the attractive things about this bid. We will be funding the building of three vessels and harbour improvements. Part of the harbour improvements will involve improving the electricity supply, which will allow hybrid and electric vessels to use the harbour very effectively. Funding this bid aligns with the Government’s decarbonisation strategy and the Clean Maritime Plan.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Minister has referred to the bid. Will the new vessels under that bid mean that fewer crossings will be cancelled due to bad weather? Will they result in more crossings made, and throughout the whole year?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I certainly hope that both those things will be true. As the noble Lord will know, there is at the moment a very ageing vessel that chugs back and forth. It is very dirty, it keeps breaking down, the cost of maintenance is very high and it has to be taken out of service for maintenance to take place. It is also the case that, to fund that maintenance, passenger fares go up and demand therefore goes down. There is so much about this bid that is very attractive. We would hope that, out of all of this, we will see better services to the Isles of Scilly.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Will there be a requirement in the contract to eliminate the use of fossil fuels?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I cannot comment on the detail of the contract; indeed, I am not entirely sure to which contract the noble Baroness is referring. We will be looking in the business case at the environmental credentials of the bid. These are very decarbonised vessels, and this is a huge step forward for maritime in the area. As I have said, however, the development of the OBC and the FBC will take a couple of years, so there will be many opportunities to discuss this further in the future.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Will the Minister ensure that the tendering is open, and not the kind of privileged access tendering that we have seen for protective equipment and clothing during the pandemic?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I have set out many times, the tendering will be part of the business case that will be put forward by the sponsor of this project. We will, of course, be looking in it for open tendering, because we understand, as well as I am sure noble Lords do, that competition is the best way to improve quality and reduce cost.
Gender Pay Gap
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the persistence of the gender pay gap, and what steps they are taking to close it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that we are continually looking at and assessing the gender pay gap. The national gender pay gap has fallen significantly under this Government and by approximately one-quarter in the last decade. The gap is caused by a range of factors, and reporting regulations have helped to motivate employers and focus attention on how improving equality can happen in the workplace. However, to continue making progress we need to understand in even more detail the real barriers that women face in the workplace and then take action to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to fulfil their potential.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the gender pay gap continues to blight the lives of many women, denying them access to good food, housing, education, healthcare, pensions and economic freedoms. I ask the Minister to commit to two things: first, not to award public contracts to organisations that have failed to eradicate the gap and, secondly, to give women a statutory right to know the pay of male colleagues doing equivalent work, with appropriate confidentiality.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
As ever, the noble Lord is very incisive and focused on the things he wants to change. I note the two points that he makes. While I cannot commit to doing them, I will go back to the ranch, tell them that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, is on the prowl again, and see what they say.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to wish the Minister a very happy birthday.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
Guidance from the Government Equalities Office states that employers reporting on the gender pay gap should record their employees’ gender identity, not their biological sex. Some argue that for the vast majority of people, gender identity matches birth sex and that recording employees’ gender identity would therefore have no significant impact on an organisation’s gender pay gap. However, in male-dominated professions such as telecommunications, where fewer than 5% of the workers are female, even a small number of misclassifications can have a significant distorting effect on the data. Does my noble friend agree that this is the case? Will she now review the GEO guidance so that it makes it clear that employers must record employees’ birth sex, not their gender identity?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
Let me be very honest and straight with my noble friend: the Government have no plans to change the guidance. Gender pay is not supposed to be a data-collecting exercise, and to make it so would increase the burden on employers.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, the world of work is changing. One of the effects of the pandemic has been more working from home, which I think will continue. There is a real danger that the gender pay gap, rather than being diminished, will actually increase because we will have more people working from home with caring responsibilities, and this will disproportionately affect lone parents and women. What will the Government do, not just to reduce the gap but to prevent it widening?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The gender pay gap is something that the Government take very seriously. The point that the noble Baroness makes about flexible working and working from home, and the impact that those have on women in particular, is well noted. Flexible working is wide-ranging and includes part time and flexitime, and it can be crucial for opening up opportunities, particularly for women. I cannot give a categorical answer about what we will do other than to say that we are mindful of this in everything we do in the Government Equalities Office. It may be that I come back to the noble Baroness with a bit more detail.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, my supplementary question handily spans both parts of the Minister’s multitasking portfolio—an opportunity too good to miss, and a sort of birthday present. Will the Minister acknowledge that one of the biggest consequences of the gender pay gap is the gender pensions gap? Can she therefore outline what steps the Government are taking to address that specific dimension of the problem? When will action be taken to address the acknowledged shortcomings in the benefits that accrued from automatic enrolment for the many women on low pay in broken employment?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that wonderful birthday present. Let me just say that auto-enrolment has been a fantastic success, and we want that to continue. On the point he raises about net pay and the pensions gap, the Government are absolutely going to rectify the anomaly. We published a call for evidence. The Government will pay a top-up to low earners, making contributions to pensions schemes using a net pay arrangement, from 2024-25 onwards.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister has heard of the book The End of Bias: How We Change Our Minds, by Jessica Nordell, on the incremental, cumulative effect of unconscious bias. Her model found that only a 3% unconscious bias in performative evaluation resulted in 87% of men in the top jobs. It is a shocker, but it explains a lot. If the Minister has not seen it, could she have a look and consider its implications for government policy?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I wish I had known about this before, because somebody could have bought it for me for my birthday. I will go out and find that book, and I will read it. As for changing bias and the distortions in salaries between men and women, no one needs to push our door on that—we are there. As the good man Sir Winston said, those people who can change their mind can change anything.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I join other noble Lords in wishing the noble Baroness a happy birthday. Research by the Fawcett Society found that three out of five women who had been asked about salary history believed it damaged their confidence in negotiating better pay and believed a low past salary was coming back to haunt them. Does the Minister recognise that, when companies ask about salary history, it can mean that past pay discrimination follows women, people of colour and people with disabilities throughout their working life? Does she share my concern that this issue means new employers replicate pay gaps from other organisations? Could the Government consider this matter and allow it to be part of the influencing of their policy?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I completely agree with the noble Baroness. You can sit in front of an employer and tell them what your salary is, and then they think they can get away with paying you just a little bit more. That is not on. I share the noble Baroness’s concerns, and I will feed those back into the policy-making process.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I declare my interest as in the register, and I echo the birthday wishes to my noble friend. Following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I am delighted that Her Majesty’s Treasury will introduce measures to top up the pensions of those women who are receiving lower net pay each week due to the pension choice of their employer. The gender pensions gap is an urgent issue; it is twice the size or more of the pay gap. What measures are the Government taking to ensure employers help to close the gender pensions gap?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My noble friend has been a long-term campaigner on the gender pensions gap and the net pay issue, and I am glad that we have some good news on the horizon. It was a Conservative Government who introduced mandatory gender pay gap reporting, in 2017, which means that all large employers—those of more than 10,000 employees—have to calculate it publicly. This has placed the gender pay gap at the top of the agenda and prompted conversations with business. Employers are now focused on understanding and tackling the causes of the gaps in their own organisations.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
Does the Minister agree—and I ask her to be bold in this instance—that complete transparency of income is the best way of dealing with the gender pay gap and discrimination on the grounds of race and disability? Surely the only answer is that we should have all incomes in the public domain through the tax system; that way we would know who is earning what and where discrimination takes place, and we would also see who is on the fiddle.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
You cannot argue with that. On transparency, I am absolutely with the noble Lord, but the issue of publishing everything on tax and salary is well beyond my pay grade. I will talk to my friends in the Treasury.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, that concludes Oral Questions for today.
Dormant Assets Bill [HL]
Tuesday 23rd November 2021
(3 years 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)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass and, in doing so, take the opportunity to thank noble Lords from all sides of your Lordships’ House for their interest and contributions to the progress of the Bill so far. I am grateful for the scrutiny that they have brought, and the co-operative and constructive spirit in which the debates have taken place. I am also grateful for the broad cross-party support that the Bill has received so far. It is clear that all corners of your Lordships’ House share the same ambition to ensure the scheme’s continued success in unlocking dormant assets for public good.
I first thank my noble friend Lady Barran, who expertly led the Bill through Second Reading and Committee. I am very grateful for the opportunity to follow in her capable footsteps. I pay tribute also to the Front Benches opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, have helpfully challenged the Government’s approach, and I thank them for the collaborative way in which they have done so. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Kramer, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, for all their invaluable contributions, which have been detailed and thoughtful. Noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House have contributed to a rich discussion on the Bill, and I am very grateful for all the points which have been raised.
As ever, I am grateful to the House authorities and parliamentary staff for their hard work behind the scenes. I acknowledge the extraordinary work of the officials who have worked so hard on the Bill for many months: the Bill team, the policy teams at DCMS and at Her Majesty’s Treasury, the lawyers in both departments, my own private office, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the clerks in this place.
I take this opportunity to clarify aspects of the debate on Report regarding the additionality principle, an issue I discussed with the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Kramer. Section 24 of the 2008 Act empowers the Secretary of State to add or remove named distributors of dormant assets funding. Currently, the only named distributor is the National Lottery Community Fund, and all funds, including those distributed through the four independent spend organisations in England, flow through it. Section 24 also provides for making consequential amendments, including to Schedule 3, where responsibility for reporting on the additionality principle is set out.
The Government consider additionality to be critical to the scheme’s success, and we have reiterated this position throughout our debates on the Bill. Indeed, we are clear that the voluntary participation of the industry is dependent on it. While we emphasise that there are no plans to change or add new distributors, I can reassure noble Lords that it is the Government’s policy that any new distributor added should be required to report on this principle in the same way that the fund is required to do so now.
The dormant assets scheme has spent the last decade working to tackle systemic social and environmental challenges and to level up communities which need it most. This Bill is set to unlock almost £1 billion of additional funding to ensure that the scheme continues to support innovative, long-term initiatives that seek to address some of the UK’s most important challenges.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be pleased to hear that I will be brief, but some thanks are worth echoing. I thank the Minister; it is never easy taking up another person’s Bill halfway through. I have had to do it myself and, at times, I lurched from being completely out of my depth to being a total shambles, so I know how it feels. The noble Lord was neither of those things; he was courteous and considerate of the points that we made and the amendments we moved.
Like the noble Lord I am delighted that we are moving to unlock previously untapped assets. I hope that the next iteration of this legislation—this is, after all, the second Bill on dormant assets—will bring forward even more dormancy and unlock it, so that communities can benefit.
I also thank the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her time spent on the Bill. She was, like him, very courteous and open-minded about ways in which we can forge improvements. She was also willing to meet and discuss aspects of the legislation. I echo his thanks to my noble friend Lady Merron—my good friend—for her part in this. It is always a pleasure to work with her. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Barker, on the Lib Dem Benches, who also played an active and energetic part.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, played a decisive role on Report in helping to support the amendment that we sponsored on the community wealth fund, for which there was all-party support. Before the Commons is invited to reject that amendment, I suggest to the Minister that it might be an idea to sponsor some discussion between his ministerial colleagues and other Benches in your Lordships’ House to see if there is a way in which we can find some common ground on this—because I am very persuaded, as I know others are, of the benefit of the community wealth fund as a way forward. As he said, these resources can do a lot to take forward the shared agenda of levelling up and bring additional resources to bear in hard-pressed communities. We for our part would be very happy to meet and discuss this to see what common ground we can secure, because this is an important opportunity for us all, if we want to make it stick.
We wish the Bill well. It has been improved by your Lordships’ House, not just by the amendment on the community wealth fund but in other aspects as well. I thank the Minister for his comments on additionality, which will be very helpful. I am happy to support the Bill as it goes on its way.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I also thank very much the Minister, his predecessor—the noble Baroness, Lady Barran—and the team. As is always the case with a Bill that is very technical and arcane, they had to display endless patience with the opposition as we painstakingly made our way to the place that they were already at. I also thank my noble friends Lady Bowles and Lady Kramer, who brought to the Bill a completely fresh eye from the financial sector and who set a very high standard of scrutiny for a Bill that is normally given over to those of us interested in the world of charity.
We achieved three things during the passage of the Bill. First, we made it clear that this is not simply an exercise in spending dormant money because it is there. We made sure that the scheme is about achieving impacts on financial inclusion in areas of deprivation. Secondly, we enabled it to be run using far more difficult asset classes than just bank accounts, and we made sure that the reporting systems for that were fit for purpose. Thirdly, we made sure that everyone involved in the scheme is under a duty to report—this is about additionality, not giving the Government a fund that they can dip into in difficult times.
In years to come, we will have reports from the disbursing body and the Secretary of State that I hope will show the impact of this, particularly in one respect: the endeavour to get rid of moneylenders in poor communities. If we achieve that, we will together have achieved something good and which we can be proud to support.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments, and I echo the tributes that they paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and many others who contributed to the debates on this.
I will certainly discuss the point that the noble Lord raised with my honourable friend Nigel Huddleston, the Minister with responsibility for the Bill, in his capacity as Minister for Charities and Civil Society, as we just heard in Questions. I am sure that he will want to continue the discussions that we have had on community wealth funds as the Bill goes to another place but, as I say, I am very grateful that it does so with genuine cross-party support and a fair wind behind it. I grateful to all noble Lords who have ensured that this is so.
Armed Forces Bill
Tuesday 23rd November 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 View all Armed Forces Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 62-I Marshalled list for Report - (19 Nov 2021)
16:03 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 210 / Noes: 190 - Amendment 2 agreed.
17:47 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 219 / Noes: 173 - Amendment 4 agreed.
19:07 - Division on Amendment 23 - Ayes: 153 / Noes: 160 - Amendment 23 disagreed.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move my Amendment 1, which would add my own words to the Government’s insertion of “or a Circuit judge”, and to speak in the same group to Amendment 2, which I support, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and other noble Lords.
My amendment seeks to put on the face of the Bill the type of circuit judge that can be nominated to sit as a judge advocate. My understanding is that, at present, the Lord Chief Justice is able to nominate a High Court judge to do so and, in practice, from time to time does so. High Court judges have wide experience to try a whole range of cases, and those of the Queen’s Bench Division from time to time try the most serious offences, such as murder, manslaughter and rape, while they are on circuit. Circuit judges do not as a rule try such cases, save for those who are licensed by the Lord Chief Justice to do so. They are very senior and experienced judges. Trying a murder case can be a challenge, although those experienced to do so have the custom and practice to do it extremely well.
I hope that we can have a clear view that the type of judge who should sit is one who is licensed to try murder and manslaughter cases. I have the assurance of the Minister that they would be very experienced judges. I am grateful for her remarks but I emphasise that, administratively, in future there is no guarantee that what she says on paper now will mean that only those who are licensed to try in the criminal courts try such cases.
Turning to Amendment 2 to Clause 7, I racked what one of my mentors, the late Lord Elwyn-Jones, Lord Chancellor, used to call my brain for a suitable amendment that would be in order for Report to revisit the proposition, which I argued for in Committee, to civilianise the court martial system in certain serious criminal cases. My poor offering is the new clause proposed in Amendment 25 on page 8 of the Marshalled List. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has shown greater ingenuity than me, and I now give notice that I will not move my amendment and will instead support his.
My campaign to civilianise the court martial system goes back a long way, to the time of the controversy concerning Sergeant Blackman’s case. The Minister was particularly kind to refer to my interest then. Following a number of debates that I was fortunate to initiate, the Ministry of Defence, with unaccustomed speed, set up an inquiry led by His Honour Shaun Lyons, and we are grateful to him. I am sure that this action owes a great deal to the then Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. Regrettably, Shaun Lyons’s recommendations for murder, manslaughter and rape have not been accepted by the Government.
I am glad that the protocol that I initiated and signed in the agreement between the Attorney-General’s office and the military prosecutors has stood the test of time. The ultimate authority in the Bill is the Director of Public Prosecutions, who works under the supervision of the Attorney-General, and, from my reading of the Bill, there is no undermining of the system. The Government were loath to accept my amendment in Committee. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, does exactly what I had hoped would be plain sailing at Committee stage, and I congratulate him.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, for his support, and I congratulate him on the attempts that he has made over a long time to civilianise military law. I am pleased that he mentioned Lord Elwyn-Jones, who admitted me to the rank of Queen’s Counsel in the Moses Room rather a long time ago.
The issue in Amendment 2 is: should members of the Armed Forces accused of murder, manslaughter, rape or other sexual offences alleged to have been committed within the United Kingdom be tried by court martial or in ordinary courts? The Mutiny Act 1689, in the reigns of William and Mary, laid down the principle that there should be annual renewals of the Armed Forces Act. The recital to it said:
“No man may be forejudged of life or limb, or subjected … to any kind of punishment … by martial law, or in any other manner than by the judgment of his peers and according to the known and established laws of this realm.”
That is the sentiment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has just enunciated, and it is a principle derived from the Magna Carta.
But this recital in the Act contained an exception to that stirring principle. In respect of
“every person being mustered and in pay as an officer or soldier in their Majesty’s service, who excited, caused or joined in any mutiny or sedition in the Army, or deserted their Majesty’s service”,
the punishment was death.
The other means of disciplining service personnel was under the Articles of War, issued under the King’s sign-manual, but only for the purpose of operations abroad, particularly in the colonies, not in the United Kingdom.
The Mutiny Act applied throughout Great Britain and Ireland, so that even in peacetime a soldier mutinying or deserting would be tried and punished under martial law, not civil law, and without the protections offered through civil law procedures.
The great jurist Sir William Blackstone, writing in 1765, was incensed that soldiers should be dealt with by court martial in peacetime and regretted that
“a set of men, whose bravery has so often preserved the liberties of their country, should be reduced to a state of servitude in the midst of a nation of freemen!”
When, in 2006, therefore, the Labour Government introduced into their Armed Forces Act a provision which permitted the trial of service personnel by court martial for serious offences committed in this country—a course which I strongly opposed at the time—they were going against centuries of history. The serviceman was now open to court martial for any offence, including murder, manslaughter and rape, even when committed in the United Kingdom. Importantly, he had lost the right to be tried by an ordinary jury of 12 of his peers and was subject to the verdict and punishment of up to seven officers, arrived at by a simple majority.
That is enough history; we must look at the position now, in 2021. We have before us the strong recommendation of His Honour Judge Lyons in his review. As it happens, his first recommendation is that the court martial jurisdiction should no longer include murder, manslaughter and rape when those offences are committed in the United Kingdom, except with the consent of the Attorney-General. The Defence Sub-committee under Sarah Atherton, Member of Parliament for Wrexham, published its report in July, entitled Protecting Those who Protect Us. That report calls urgently for the implementation of His Honour Judge Lyons’s recommendation.
It is true that, in his recent report, Sir Richard Henriques accepted concurrent jurisdiction, as it is called, but the reason he gives is that there may be cases which occur both abroad and in this country, and consequently a single trial would be preferable. That reason would not have any force in respect of murder cases, where there is universal jurisdiction.
I do not believe that a murder case, for a murder committed in the United Kingdom, has been dealt with by way of court martial since 2006. However, I have been able to trace two cases where charges of manslaughter by negligence occurring in this country were tried in that way, both relating to the Castlemartin range in west Wales. In the most recent case, in 2012, a soldier was killed during a live firing exercise. That case was about the planning, organisation and running of that range and required reconstruction of the scene, with accurate grid references and bearings to establish to the criminal standard the origin of the fatal round. Three were convicted and the officer was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, with the others receiving service punishments. It follows, and I do concede, that there may be cases involving complex military issues where a court martial may be appropriate, but these are very rare—two cases in some 14 years.
In reply to the Minister’s comments in Committee, I said that she had misinterpreted this amendment. I have used the word “normally”, which means what it says: that offences committed in the UK would be tried in the ordinary Crown Courts, or in their equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That would be part of the protocol of the DSP and the DPP. It would be in only exceptional cases of the nature to which I have referred that the Attorney-General would need to be approached. I am not suggesting that he should be involved in the decision-making process of venue ab initio. Incidentally, there is no bar to the Attorney-General making a decision on venue, just as he or she may do in deciding on the commencement of proceedings. The Minister suggested the contrary in her reply in Committee.
Much more common are cases of rape and sexual offences occurring in this country being tried by court martial. It is obvious from the report of Sarah Atherton’s Defence Sub-Committee that complainants, their families and the public simply do not have confidence in courts martial. We can argue about the figures, but if the level of conviction is so low then this perception will have an effect on recruitment and, more importantly, retention. There are many victims within the armed services who will wish to leave for a civilian life if their complaints are not upheld.
The noble Baroness also repeated the justification advanced in 2006 that public confidence can be maintained in the whole service justice system
“only if the service justice system not only has but can be shown to have the capability to deal with all offending fairly, efficiently and in a manner which respects and upholds the needs of victims.”—[Official Report, 27/10/21; col. GC 166.]
That was the justification in 2006 to give a boost to the status of the partly reformed system of courts martial.
I said at Second Reading that I generally welcome the reforms in this Bill. They nearly conclude the long journey since the Findlay human rights case in 1995 towards founding the service justice system on justice rather than, as it has been historically, on discipline. We have finally buried the Mutiny Act, under which General Braddock in the Seven Years’ War could issue the order of the day:
“Any Soldier who shall desert tho’ he return again will be hanged without mercy.”
This amendment is designed to complete the journey towards justice.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
There is one brief reason that I would add to what has been so eloquently said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We have always tried, and marked the seriousness of, crimes set out in the amendment by trial by jury. Magna Carta conferred on defendants the right to trial by jury. Today, we take account of the interests of the victim of such crimes and they have confidence only in trial by jury, particularly as so many of these cases turn on credibility. On that, the judgment of ordinary men and women, drawn from a jury, is the only way to achieve justice. For those three reasons, we should not deprive people of trial by jury in these cases.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, having attached my name to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I did that because, as we came to the deadline, I noticed that there was a space, and I really felt that, given the level of support that the issue covered by this amendment achieved at Second Reading, it deserved the broadest cross-party and non-party support possible.
I will also reflect on what I said in Committee on this amendment. Much of our leadership on this has come from Members from legal backgrounds, who focused on the rights of the defendant. I understand that, but I also note that I am the only female Peer who has attached my name to the amendment. There is very much a gender aspect to this. Women currently make up 10% of our full-time military—about 15,000 in number. They are still a significant minority right across the forces.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, just alluded to, we have a military culture stretching back many centuries that was, for most of that time, entirely male dominated. Offences such as domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault are disproportionately committed against women. Last night in this very Chamber on the policing Bill we were discussing how difficult it is to get our civilian justice arrangements to cater adequately for these offences. How much more difficult is it in the military context, with the culture we just heard outlined?
I commend the amendment to the House and, looking back to the Second Reading debate, note the breadth of support it achieved.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after my noble and learned friend Lord Morris, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I support Amendment 2 in our names, an exceptionally important amendment that seeks to build and improve on the current situation, according to the principles laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, on the need for trial by jury.
As we heard in Committee, the independent review by his honour Judge Shaun Lyons and Sir Jon Murphy recommended that murder, manslaughter, rape, sexual assault by penetration and child and domestic abuse cases, where alleged to have happened in the UK, should be removed from the military justice system, except where the consent of the Attorney-General was obtained. Lyons recommended establishing a serious crime unit and removing murder, manslaughter, rape, sexual assault by penetration and child and domestic abuse cases from the SJS. One did not stop the other.
As noble Lords have pointed out, there is a problem here, in some of the issues of principle that have been raised and in looking at some of the statistics. In Committee, the Minister said that it was not possible to draw
“a meaningful statistical or data comparison between the service and civilian justice systems”,—[Official Report, 27/10/21; col. GC 165.]
because the small database would mean that some changes would result in a “disproportionate effect”.
I looked for some statistics to put before your Lordships, to highlight some of the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about. These statistics, regarding the court martial system within the Ministry of Defence, as given by the Government in answer to a Written Question in February 2021, show the issue that has been highlighted, not only by Sarah Atherton MP’s report but by many other reports and stories that come out of the Ministry of Defence. For example, according to the Government’s own figures, in 2015, 31 charges were heard, with three defendants found guilty. There were 40 sexual assault cases that year, in which 21 defendants were found guilty. In 2019, nine cases of assault by penetration were heard, with two defendants found guilty. There are many other figures that can be used. These statistics were issued on 3 February 2021 by the then Minister, Johnny Mercer MP, in response to a question, highlighting some of the issues and the need for us to reflect on whether we can improve the system.
Sarah Atherton MP, his honour Judge Lyons and many others have said that it is not only about a case of justice or the principle of trial by jury. There are very real problems within the military justice system in this respect. Therefore, this amendment takes us to a very important issue of principle and a very important way in which we might do better in bringing justice to some of these women.
In Committee, the Minister said that the Government had
“committed to publishing a defence-wide strategy for dealing with rape and serious sexual offences in the service justice system.”—[Official Report, 27/10/21; col. GC 166.]
However, on 8 November, her ministerial colleague, the Armed Forces Minister, said that the Government have only an intention to publish a defence-wide strategy for dealing with rape and serious sexual offences in the service justice system. Can the Minister comment on whether publishing that strategy is a commitment or an intention, and how that strategy would seek to improve conviction rates in the system?
Supporting the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the excellent way in which he presented it, is a way of ensuring that we move towards the principles that we seek to ensure for all our citizens, and to do something about some of the problems that we see in the statistics I have mentioned.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, if I may intervene briefly, I will start with a confession: I have not read the Mutiny Act 1689, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred so eloquently. But I have a little experience, in that I have sat on a court martial as part of the board. I have never been court-martialled, I am glad to say, but I have experience of military justice—some decades ago now, because I am getting old. I also have some experience of it from working in the Ministry of Defence in the coalition Government. The Bill as a whole tries to make the criminal justice system in the military better. It is all to be applauded, and I am particularly impressed with the setting up of the defence serious crime unit.
I found a slight contradiction in the amendments that we are discussing today; perhaps it might be explained later. Is it because defendants—typically soldiers—are too harshly treated that they should have trial by jury? When I was serving, my experience was that, in the military justice system, there was a certain attitude: “If he is before a court martial”—it was almost exclusively a “he”—“he must be guilty”. Or is it because, as it says in Amendment 25, we need to improve the rates of conviction for serious offences? This seems to be a slight contradiction.
Is it because people do not like the whole courts martial system? That is a serious question to be addressed. In my experience, which is aged and limited, the courts martial system works pretty well, so let us know exactly why it should be that we wish to change it for these matters—and I know Judge Lyons has said so. Notwithstanding the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that we should not consider discipline to be part of this, it is very important that we have a disciplined force. That is why we have courts martial, though no longer the death penalty for mutiny.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to join your Lordships in the Chamber this afternoon on Report to discuss these proposed amendments to the Armed Forces Bill. This is an important Bill. I know it enjoys support across the Chamber, but interesting issues have arisen and merit discussion.
I also observe that many of the issues that were vigorously and articulately debated in Committee have resurfaced. That was a good debate, probing the legislation for the Bill. Please be assured that I will endeavour again to address the points raised and to dispel the concerns that noble Lords have around the Bill.
Your Lordships may take comfort that I am as passionately driven as anyone in this Chamber to ensure that we deliver the best for our service men and women, our veterans and their families, balanced against the resources to hand. I say with confidence that the Bill seeks to achieve that overriding objective. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Robathan for acknowledging that this is exactly the improvement that the Bill seeks to deliver.
With that said, I will now speak to Amendments 1, 2 and 25. Just for the avoidance of doubt, I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, will not now move Amendment 25, and therefore I propose not to use my speaking notes and have a Mogadon effect on the Chamber. If the noble and learned Lord is content with that, I can perhaps shorten this debate a little.
Amendments 1 and 2 focus on the service justice system. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, for tabling Amendment 1. It seeks to amend Clause 3 so that a circuit judge or a High Court judge can be nominated by the Lord Chief Justice to sit as a judge advocate only when they are ticketed to deal with cases of murder, manslaughter and rape.
First, I reassure your Lordships that judge advocates hearing murder, manslaughter and rape cases in the courts martial have the same training and requirement for ticketing as judges hearing those cases in the Crown Court. The Judge Advocate-General and all judge advocates sit in the Crown Court for up to 60 sitting days a year and are as qualified, capable and well trained as civilian judges sitting in the Crown Court.
Tickets are allocated based on the Judge Advocate-General’s judgment that a particular judge advocate has the appropriate training, experience and ability to try the case in question. Judges nominated by or on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice to sit as a judge advocate will likewise have whatever tickets are necessary for the case that they will be trying. I trust that this will assure the noble and learned Lord that all the judges sitting in the courts martial are qualified to try whatever case is before them.
There may also be some misapprehension about another situation: when the service courts might need additional judges. As drafted, the amendment would allow only judges ticketed for murder, manslaughter and rape to be nominated to sit in the court martial. The judiciary in the service courts is already able to deal with these serious offences, so the Judge Advocate-General may need to request the nomination of a judge for other reasons. It might be because they have particular expertise or experience that is relevant for another type of offence. There might also simply be a temporary shortage of judge advocates, perhaps when the service courts have an unusually high caseload. A judge nominated to sit in the service court would need to be ticketed only for the particular type of case that they are trying; they would not need a ticket for murder, manslaughter or rape, unless of course they were dealing with those offences. I hope that that reassures your Lordships and, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I turn now to Amendment 2 in this group, tabled by the noble lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It seeks to ensure that certain serious crimes—murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration—are all tried in the civilian courts when committed by a serviceperson in the UK, unless by reason of specific naval or military complexity involving the service the Attorney-General has specifically consented for such crimes to be tried at courts martial.
By way of preface, I say that it was very clear from our debate in Grand Committee that we all have a common aim: to ensure that, where there is concurrent jurisdiction, each case is heard in the most appropriate jurisdiction. This amendment seeks to achieve this through two procedural safeguards—namely, that there is a presumption that these offences are heard in the civilian courts and that, to overturn that presumption, the Attorney-General’s consent must be obtained.
We accept the need to improve decision-making in relation to jurisdiction, and a key part of that is of course for the civilian system to have a potential role in each case. We differ on the need to restrict the legal principle of concurrent jurisdiction by introducing a presumption in favour of one system over the other, and that is what the noble Lord’s amendment manages to create.
As I said in Grand Committee, the recently published review by Sir Richard Henriques was unanimous on two things, in supporting not only the continued existence of the service justice system but the retention of unqualified concurrent jurisdiction for murder, manslaughter and rape. Importantly, the review found the service justice system to be fair, robust and capable of dealing with all offending. The creation of a defence serious crime unit elsewhere in the Bill will further improve the skills and capability of the service police to deal with these most serious offences. Therefore, we do not believe that a presumption in favour of these offences being heard in the civilian courts is necessary or justified.
We acknowledge that change is required to improve clarity as to how concurrency of jurisdiction works in practice. Instead of introducing an Attorney-General consent function, as recommended by His Honour Shaun Lyons, we believe that a better approach is to strengthen the prosecutors’ protocols and enhance the role of prosecutors in decision-making on concurrent jurisdiction. Independent prosecutors are, after all, the experts on prosecutorial decisions.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“(4A) Guidance under subsection (3)(a) must provide that where offences of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape or sexual assault with penetration are alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom, any charges brought against a person subject to service law shall normally be tried in a civilian court unless, by reason of specific naval or military complexity involving the service, the Attorney General consents to trial by court martial.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the most serious crimes – murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration – are tried in civilian courts when committed in the UK unless the Attorney General has specifically consented for such crimes to be tried by court martial by reason of complexity involving the service.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her careful reply, but I feel that I must test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be taking part remotely.
Clause 8: Armed forces covenant
Amendment 3
Lord Coaker
“(d) a relevant employment function,(e) a relevant pensions function,(f) a relevant compensation function,(g) a relevant social care function,(h) a relevant criminal justice function, or(i) a relevant immigration function.”
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to be back. In moving Amendment 3 in my name, I will speak to Amendments 5, 6 and 7. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for signing those amendments. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for tabling Amendment 4, which is extremely important, and the same as an amendment tabled in my name in Committee.
As I said in Committee, we support the aims of this Bill, but at present believe that there is a missed opportunity to deliver real improvements in the lives of our service personnel, veterans and their families. Like all noble Lords, we believe that the Armed Forces covenant represents a binding moral commitment between the Government and service communities, guaranteeing them and their families the respect and fair treatment their service has earned. In Committee, the Minister argued that central government in the Bill is unnecessary. She said:
“The Government are already subject to a legal obligation to report on the delivery of the covenant.” —[Official Report, 27/10/21; col. GC 194.]
But we all know that a reporting function is very different to a statutory provision ensuring that Ministers are subject to the duty of due regard. Ministers are arguing, as noble Lords will see in the Bill, that it is unnecessary for them, but necessary for local authorities, for NHS trusts, for NHS governors, and for a range of other public bodies to have a statutory duty to have due regard for the covenant. As said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, it is not only many of your Lordships who are dismayed that the Government seem determined to stand against ensuring that the due regard principle applies to central government, but the Royal British Legion and many others. They believe that the due regard principle should apply to central government in the way it applies to others. I am very supportive of the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay.
Service charities, including Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion and the Army and Naval Families Federations are also concerned about the narrow scope of the covenant, concentrating as it does on education, housing and healthcare. Service charities have pointed out that this narrow focus could, in their view, create a two-tier Armed Forces covenant. That is why we have retabled Amendments 3, 5, 6 and 7, extending the scope of the covenant in the Bill to include employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration.
The Minister has explained that the new covenant reference group will evaluate the new duty. That is very welcome, and I thank her for that concession, but it is clear that the narrow scope of housing, healthcare and education does not go wide enough to stop all areas of potential disadvantage against members of the Armed Forces, veterans and their families. As the covenant reference group will have that new duty to evaluate how the covenant is working, how will the process of evaluation take place? For example, will it have to report to the Defence Committee on an annual basis?
Not extending the scope of the covenant is a missed opportunity by the Government, and I very much look forward to the Minister’s further justification of why they are resisting that. I also look forward to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, speaking to his Amendment 4, which I think is particularly important as it would extend the “due regard” principle to central government as well as the other public bodies mentioned in the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will not be taking part in these proceedings because she is double-booked in Grand Committee.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I have much sympathy with these amendments. Back in 2010, when I served in the Committee on the Bill, I proposed similar amendments, so noble Lords may ask why I now express some hesitancy about extending the remit. I suppose it comes from my experience as Minister for the Armed Forces and Minister for Defence Veterans, Reserves and Personnel. When we roll back the clock, if I am entirely honest, in the early days of implementing the Armed Forces covenant we struggled to get traction. It took some time to convince all the local authorities within the United Kingdom to sign up and indeed to get employers to sign up. I am delighted that now we have close to 2,000 signatories to the Armed Forces covenant.
My concern really lies around the fact that, as we continue to extend the width, we may struggle to get buy-in into this if we create yet more of a burden for local authorities in particular. Especially after Covid, as they have had a difficult couple of years, they might not see the benefit of this if we simply overburden them with yet more categories. My suggestion in Committee was not that we should not extend the categories but that we should do it incrementally over a period of time. In many ways, had that been suggested today, I would have been happy to accept this amendment, but that is not the case, which is a shame. During that early stage of the process, we also struggled to demonstrate the benefits of this to veterans.
It is a shame that we have an Armed Forces Bill only once every five years because I do not want to have to wait another five years to slowly extend the remit of the covenant. However, I simply feel that at this stage such a step would be a bit too much too soon, for the reasons that I have tried to explain.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I think it might be convenient for me to speak to my amendments in this group, Amendments 17 and 4. Something about Amendment 4 has been said already and I will not repeat that, but I shall attempt to elaborate on it somewhat.
On Amendment 17, when I was trying to consider this issue more carefully after the Minister’s argument in Committee, I happened to notice that this clause has a curious provision at the beginning: it is the same as the opening clause that was in the 2011 Bill on the Armed Forces covenant report. The only reference to “Armed Forces covenant” here is by dropping the word “report”. That struck me as rather strange in a Bill dealing with the Armed Forces covenant.
My noble friend may be able to put me right on this, but I have not found a definition of that covenant in the Bill. It is true that there is a definition on the website, but the website is not yet by law an Act of Parliament. We have to distinguish between these two. I am happy to think that what I have proposed in Amendment 17 is not very different from what is on the website, but it would at least be in the statute—in the part on definitions and principles that apply to England—and would apply through it.
My main argument, of course, is in relation to Amendment 4. It is right that central government in the form of the Secretary of State, who is responsible to Parliament for the Armed Forces, should be responsible for respecting the Armed Forces covenant. If he does not have a duty to respect it, it is difficult to put that duty on local authorities, health authorities and so on. In Committee, I referred to what I regard as an important example of where this was really necessary. In the first Gulf War, there was a feeling early on—of course, I have no detail on this that I could go into—that there might be poison gas coming from the opposition in Iraq. A possible protection against that gas was provided to some of our Armed Forces. Needless to say, I do not know what it contained, and I do not think local or health authorities knew either. Importantly, therefore, the illnesses of a neurological character contracted by some veterans were thought to be possibly connected to the protection against the poison gas.
As it happened, I do not think the poison gas ever emerged, but some veterans had had this protection and there was a question about that. I sent the Minister a copy of the Library report on this; there was an inquiry into it by one of my judicial colleagues. The eventual opinion expressed by Her Majesty’s Government was that the illness was not sufficiently definite to be called Gulf War syndrome—it was probable that it was due to a variety of things and, therefore, it was not to be classified in that way.
I cannot see how anybody other than the Secretary of State could be responsible for carrying out an investigation of that kind. It is therefore vital that he should have regard to the principles; of course, the areas that he has to have regard to are in the Bill now and not subject to the extensions of Amendment 3 and the other extensions that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to. It is a simple case of three zones, as it were, in which the Secretary of State has to have regard to the principles. If anybody has to have regard to the principles of the Armed Forces covenant, I should have thought that the Secretary of State responsible to Parliament for the Armed Forces would be the leading person in that capacity.
It is for this reason that I tabled Amendment 4—having benefited from the copyright very kindly given. I look forward to what my noble friend the Minister has to say. I am sure she will have a good answer which will not be good enough. Unless this is accepted by the Government, or some provisional point of view for the future is accepted, I therefore intend to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, on Amendment 4, and I support his Amendment 17. He has brought to your Lordships’ attention an example of where due regard is necessary from the Secretary of State. When he did so in Committee, I said that I had another one, and I would like to take the opportunity to spell that out, because this cannot be devolved or left to local authorities to be dealt with.
Some servicemen recruited in Hong Kong were full members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, having taken the oath of allegiance and paid full UK taxes on their pay. They held British passports; some trained in this country or elsewhere to fit them for their role in Hong Kong; some were involved in jungle-style warfare training in Borneo; one large unit was sent to Cyprus to release further UK armed personnel for Operation Granby, the first Gulf War in 1991. Many in the Royal Navy Hong Kong Squadron served worldwide on Her Majesty’s ships. Now retired, they are still rightly classified as UK veterans and deserve fair treatment under the military covenant. But a few who served in those units that disbanded in 1997 missed out when allocations to retain their British citizenship were made in 1984. Some but not all of these servicemen were indeed allowed to retain their British passports and citizenships. Those that were missed out and overlooked have long been campaigning for a return of this right, which has been replaced by BN(O) status without the benefit of full British citizenship. This injustice occurred when they were still serving.
Their case was first raised in this House in 1986, over 35 years ago. It has been recommended by the Hong Kong LegCo and was strongly supported by Lord MacLehose, drawing on his long and distinguished tour as governor of Hong Kong from 1971 to 1972. The Minister who wound up that debate about Hong Kong replied:
“I hope that your Lordships will recognise that there are some complex issues to be considered here … But, again, I can assure your Lordships that we shall give this the most careful consideration.”—[Official Report, 20/1/1986; col. 102.]
Note that promise of careful consideration. Nothing happened. Nothing further was said or done. Regrettably, repeated assurance of careful, active consideration by the Home Office to this day still produces no decision. Surely these few veterans deserve better—a definitive answer, not just prevarication and stalling behind a misleading false promise of active consideration. How many more years of consideration do the Government require? Are the Home Office hoping that when the veterans are all dead the problem will be forgotten?
Following the enactment of the convenant in 2011, a small association, of which I am privileged to be honorary patron, was formed by some former members of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps to press their case again. I myself have repeatedly raised it in debates and Questions for Written Answer and written to the Prime Minister to support representations by those affected in Hong Kong. I am far from alone. Over the past nine years or more, many Members of both Houses have approached Ministers, Home Secretaries and Prime Ministers on behalf of these veterans, but over the past decade the response has been increasingly incredible and ridiculous—that is, that it is under active consideration.
Over 18 months ago, at their request, I forwarded 64 individual applications from those Military Service Corps veterans to the Home Secretary. None has been answered. There has not even been an acknowledgment from the Home Office. Understandably, the present situation in Hong Kong has strengthened the wish for this matter to be resolved and for those now few remaining individuals to be treated as full citizens. Will this Government at last do the right thing for these veterans?
Surely this is a further extreme example of the reason for a duty of care and due regard to be placed in statute on the Secretary of State. I am sure in future other issues affecting a group of veterans, not just individuals, will arise, which cannot be dealt with at devolved or local authority level. The Royal British Legion and other service charities have provided cogent arguments why it is not right to exclude central government from a statutory duty of due regard for veterans. I endorse that view based on their detailed and dedicated experience helping the veteran community. I strongly support this amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support Amendment 4, in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and my friend the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, told us, his amendment gives us the opportunity to address specific injustices experienced by our ex-servicemen and he is absolutely right in telling us that the lead on this should not be local authorities but national government. That is why not only are we right to hang specific cases on this amendment, but the purpose of the amendment itself is also clear and right.
Over the past decade, my noble and gallant friend and I have knocked on the doors of Ministers and raised questions on behalf of Hong Kong veterans. I know how greatly he is admired and respected by that cohort for his dedication and commitment to their cause. We have also worked with Mr Andrew Rosindell, the Member of Parliament for Romford, who has put great energy into putting right what is a clear injustice. The treatment of Hong Kong ex-servicemen has not been commensurate with the Armed Forces covenant, and the noble and learned Lord and others are seeking to put it right.
I also pay tribute to Roger Ching, the chairperson of the HKOR Benevolent Association, and who says of the treatment of Hong Kong’s ex-servicemen that
“The attitude of successive Governments towards servicemen and women and veterans is appalling.”
In 2014, my noble and gallant friend and I met with the late James Brokenshire when he was a Home Office Minister. He was characteristically courteous, but neither he nor a series of successive Home Secretaries have been able to correct the signal injustice faced by Hong Kong’s ex-servicemen.
It is worth recalling that, from 1857 until 1997, more than 40,000 Hong Kong men lost their lives protecting our interests and the interests of the Crown. In the Great War, 100,000 British-Chinese soldiers served on the Western Front, and by the time of the Armistice the Chinese Labour Corps numbered nearly 96,000 men. In subsequent conflicts, they served alongside British servicemen: in the Second World War, in Korea, in the Malayan anti-communist campaigns and elsewhere, as the noble and gallant Lord has told us. In this month of all months, we should not only honour that contribution but do something practical to show that with memory of past sacrifice comes contemporary engagement with a long-running failure to honour the past.
In July 2006, the United Kingdom granted full British citizenship to all British Gurkha soldiers and their dependants who had served in Hong Kong. It was a generous and good decision. But why has there been such a different treatment for all but a handful of Hong Kong veterans? When Hong Kong was handed back to the Chinese Communist Party in 1997, a points- based system meant that only 159 of the 654 soldiers who applied to live in the United Kingdom were successful.
Campaigners responded to that clear injustice, and one group, 38 Degrees, even set up a petition which gathered more than 117,000 signatures. Yet the response since right of abode was set up in 1997 has failed to bring a settlement, with successive Home Secretaries repeating the mantra of which my noble and gallant friend has reminded us this afternoon: that the applications are “under consideration”. For how much longer are we to be given this unsatisfactory, stalling response?
Last year, Rosie Laydon, a presenter and reporter for Forces TV, was in touch with me. She said:
“British Hong Kong veterans do not feel the current Government offer of visas to those with BNO status offers adequate recognition of their service. They have told me that they believe they should be granted British citizenship unconditionally”—
and I agree. They also told her that, as former members of the British Armed Forces, under Chinese national security laws, now imposed on Hong Kong, they are liable to be charged with spying for the United Kingdom Government.
Here I should declare that I am a patron of Hong Kong Watch, a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong and sanctioned, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, by the CCP after taking part, in my case, in an international team monitoring the district council elections in 2019. Since then, we have seen the enactment of the CCP’s draconian national security law, and I should like to hear from the Minister, for whom I have enormous respect, as she knows, what assessment she has made of the implications of loyal service to the Crown for the safety of our ex-servicemen in Hong Kong. We need to see this matter is a question of honour, but we also need to see it as a question of safety and security.
Recently, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, told me in a Parliamentary Answer:
“The National Security Law is being used to systematically stifle rights and freedoms, not protect public security.”
He also wrote:
“The UK is deeply concerned about the situation in Hong Kong and the systematic erosion of rights and freedoms and the high degree of autonomy enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration.”
Perhaps when the Minister replies, she can tell us when the United Kingdom is going to do anything more to hold the People’s Republic of China to account for the destruction of the basic freedoms of Hong Kong.
Meanwhile, I point out to your Lordships’ House that the Times has reported that the Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, says that the CCP is “committing genocide” in Xinjiang—something that the House will return to on Thursday. In the context of Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan, I may add that there have been more than 150 sorties trying to intimidate Taiwan in the course of just five days. In Xinjiang, we have heard the United States Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, say that
“the forcing of men, women and children into concentration camps”—
his words—
“trying to, in effect, re-educate them to be adherents to the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party, all of that speaks to an effort to commit genocide.”
Is it any wonder, then, that loyal servants of the Crown fear for the consequences of being abandoned in Hong Kong? The CCP has imprisoned lawyers, dissenters, pastors and journalists, such as the young woman, Zhang Zhan, tortured and jailed for four years for shining a light into the origins of the Covid pandemic in Wuhan. On Friday last, concerned for her deteriorating health, the United Nations called for her release.
In this context of arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture and re-education—even genocide—who can seriously doubt that Hong Kong’s ex-servicemen, like Afghan interpreters or judges, will be primary targets as “two systems, one country” becomes “one system, one party, one ideology”? Recall that this is the same CCP responsible for the massacres in Tiananmen Square and for the enormities of the Cultural Revolution—and the deaths of 50 million Chinese people.
Through the Armed Forces covenant, we have the opportunity to demonstrate that we will not abandon loyal servants of the Crown, that we do not forget our debt of honour and obligations and that Parliament will go on supporting my noble and gallant friend until this wrong has been put right. It is for those reasons that I strongly support the amendment placed before your Lordships’ House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments, in particular Amendment 4, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I have special reasons for doing so. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said that, when he was in office, it took a long time to persuade local councils and devolved powers to agree to implement the covenant. I dispute the fact that he got them all to agree; I come from Northern Ireland and there is a particular problem there. For that reason, Amendment 4 is even more important.
In Northern Ireland, the devolved Government and many of the councils do not support the covenant. Therefore, where do we go for support? The only place we can go, without, if you like, disfranchising our veterans, is to a Secretary of State. I am sure the Minister will say that this amendment comes in the part of the Bill that affects England and that it therefore does not affect the other nations and cannot stand on its own. However, it would take just a stroke of a pen to add this for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland issue is colossal. We do not have more veterans than anywhere else but, because of our Troubles and the local security forces, we have an awful lot more in relation to our size. Of course, we have veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well. The number is significant, and these people have nobody at all to be their champion as far as the covenant goes.
At the moment—one does not need to go into the detail—the covenant is actually being administered quite well at a different level, below the radar, and we do not want to bring that up as a subject. However, on the idea of having a final place or person that people can go to, I support Amendment 4 because it brings a Secretary of State into this. It should therefore be written throughout that the Secretaries of State in the devolved areas have responsibility for this and are just quietly overseeing it. It is not necessarily a devolved issue and can be retained through the Secretary of State. He would have an influence on our veterans being supported as they should be. I certainly support these amendments.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 4. I ask your Lordships to reflect on the origin of the Armed Forces covenant, which we find in the Armed Forces Acts, going back to 2011. It was not a new idea dreamed up by the Government of the day but the beginnings of the codification of something that had existed for quite some time as an informal covenant or agreement between those who serve and the Government who require them to carry out certain operations.
The covenant is effective when the balance between the requirements placed on the Armed Forces community and veterans is itself in balance. In the days and years leading up to 2011, when the Armed Forces covenant went into law, and particularly during the most difficult period when operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were being conducted together, the balance was definitely out of kilter and we were out of balance as far as the informal aspect of the covenant was concerned.
Who could better personify and embody the government side of the balance between the Government who require the Armed Forces to carry out operations and the servicepeople who conduct those operations than the Secretary of State? I fully support Amendment 4. I support the further codification of the covenant and any moves to increase its scope, but particularly the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which would make the Secretary of State a pinnacle and personification of the Government’s side of the covenant. That is absolutely critical.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I too support Amendments 4 and 17. What brings me to this conviction is a case in which the widows of four soldiers from the Royal Marines were asked to leave their houses within three months of their deaths. They had nowhere to go. Another soldier who survived the same battle came to see me in Bishopthorpe, together with four other members of the Royal Marines, to say that we had to protest about the way widows were treated. There was talk about the covenant, but it had not yet come through. To raise the profile of this issue, they wanted me to join them in a parachute jump. At my age, this is quite serious business, but I thought that yes, I would join them. We were up there, at 14,500 feet, and, thank God, I survived; there was no real trouble, and I landed properly. Do you know what happened? People who saw this and learned what had been done donated a lot of money, and those four widows were housed in new builds, supported by a landowner who gave them a place to build houses.
That is what the covenant is about in the end: that we should look after anybody who has done their duty for the service of the Crown and the nation. The Bill is right to require local authorities and other places to have due regard to the covenant, but I would have thought that the Government should be first in line to have due regard to it, because the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament, unlike local authorities. We could have some junior Minister reporting on what is happening and what is not happening, but the issue of democracy at the heart of this is that members of the Government are answerable to Parliament and can therefore be asked questions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is right to include the Secretary of State in Amendments 4 and 17. If they were agreed, the covenant would no longer be given to people of good will to try to do whatever they want—the Government would actually be answerable, and we could ask them questions.
This amendment is timely. I hope we will all support it and that the Government will see it as an improvement, not an attempt to create more jobs and work for the Secretary of State. In the end, our soldiers ultimately look to them for a voice, for help and for support.
I did that parachute jump and was very glad to see the covenant a few years later, but it still did not quite do what this amendment is trying to do. I say to the Government: do not come back to this again—include the Secretary of State.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 4, which I have co-signed, and Amendments 3, 5, 6 and 7 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lady Brinton. We have already seen this afternoon one of the slight peculiarities of our system, which is currently not quite hybrid: we had a long delay on the first Division, because somehow the technology did not quite work. At the moment, the technology does not quite work either for noble Lords who seek to be both in Grand Committee and in your Lordships’ House, in the main Chamber, simultaneously. For those of us here physically, it can be possible to move very quickly between the Moses Room and the Chamber. Our colleagues appearing virtually have to log on half an hour before an item of business, so my noble friend Lady Brinton apologises for not speaking on this group.
I will speak to the amendments she has co-signed with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. There is one aspect in particular which ought to be mentioned: paragraph (i) of Amendments 3, 5, 6 and 7, which mentions an immigration function. If we are going to talk—as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have done—about Hong Kong service personnel who served with our Armed Forces, initially as citizens and then losing that citizenship and perhaps having only the right to BNO status, I fear that we need to think about immigration questions and the Home Office.
I am aware that the Minister will be responding on behalf of the MoD, even though obviously she is also responding on behalf of the Government as a whole. I am therefore aware that some of the things we will ask might not be within her gift, but I very much endorse the impassioned calls from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and my noble friend Lord Alton about the situation for Hong Kong veterans. They served for us. We owe them a debt of gratitude and the citizenship rights they expected.
If the Minister cannot commit, as I suspect she will not, to changing this piece of legislation in the way that some of us might want, can she at least undertake to go and talk to her colleagues in the Home Office and discuss ways in which we can look at veterans—not just the Gurkhas or Commonwealth veterans, who will appear in later groups of amendments, but the Hongkongers? This is vital, in part to demonstrate that the United Kingdom respects those who have worked with us. We have a moral obligation. Can we trust the Government to live up to it?
We heard the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, suggest that he actually had some sympathy with this group of amendments, particularly Amendments 3, 5, 6 and 7. He would like to bring in these additional functions, alongside healthcare, education and housing, but thinks it is too much, too soon. But, as we have heard, we will not have another full Armed Forces Bill for five years. Would it not be appropriate to bring forward and approve these amendments now, acknowledging that maybe they will not all be brought in on day one? Indeed, if they were all brought in on day one, that would be nothing short of a miracle—but, if they are enshrined in the Bill, it means that the Government will have a duty to look at these additional functions, and even the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, who appears to be most sceptical about the amendments, acknowledges that these functions should be considered. So I ask the Minister to think again about these functions and whether they should be added to the Bill.
I particularly want to speak to Amendment 4, to which I added my name. It seems quite extraordinary for a Government to say, “We are so committed to the Armed Forces covenant that it has to have statutory status, yet it should not place a duty on us. We ourselves should not have to pay due regard to it, but we will ask local authorities, local health authorities and housing associations to do so”. Why are we not asking the Secretary of State for Defence to have a duty? Why are we not asking the Secretary of State responsible for levelling up, houses, communities and whatever else is now part of that portfolio?
We have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that it would also be important for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to play a part. As he pointed out, the amendment refers only to England. It would be very simple to have additional lines that would give it validity in Northern Ireland, and indeed Scotland and Wales. If the Minister were to say, “We can’t do something that’s for England only”, could she perhaps consider bringing back at Third Reading some amendments that would deal with this?
From the letter that the Minister sent to us last week, we know that she will say that the Government are out of scope of the Bill because, actually, it is at local level that we see problems. Well, if it is only at local level that we see problems, surely it would be of no difficulty whatever for the Secretary of State to find himself in the Bill and for the Government to have a duty enshrined in this piece of legislation. The Government should be leading, not simply setting duties for other—lower—levels of local government. The Government themselves should take responsibility and the moral lead.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a genuinely interesting and thoughtful debate. I will focus on the amendments that comprise the grouping: Amendments 3 to 7 and Amendment 17. To that end, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for tabling his well-intended—I know that that is what they are—Amendments 3, 5, 6 and 7, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for supporting them.
I was aware during the debate that some contributors made fairly wide-ranging speeches, not least focusing on citizens of Hong Kong and former Hong Kong military service personnel. These are important issues, but I would rather deal with them under Amendment 26, which seems more relevant to that particular area of concern. So, in addressing the amendments in group 2, I will confine my remarks to the issues covered by them.
The purpose of these amendments is to widen the scope of the new covenant duty to the areas of employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration in all four home nations. As I made clear in Committee, the new duty created by the Bill is designed to initially focus on the three core functions of healthcare, education and housing. This quite simply reflects those already in statute that are the most commonly raised areas and where variation of service delivery across localities can inadvertently cause disadvantage to the Armed Forces community.
Importantly, future areas of concern can be addressed as and when they arise through the powers in the Bill that allow the Government to widen the scope of the covenant duty, if needed, through secondary legislation. We are working with key stakeholders to establish an open and transparent process by which the scope of the legislation can successfully adapt to address the changing needs of the Armed Forces community.
As a number of your Lordship have indicated, our plan is to use the covenant reference group as the focus of this work. It has a broad representation from the Armed Forces community, service charities, families’ federations, the Local Government Association and senior officials from both central government departments in Westminster and the devolved Administrations. I suggest that the covenant reference group is therefore ideally placed to be closely involved in the future development and running of this process. It will bring the necessary expertise and representation together to best consider suitable additions to the scope of the duty.
I wish to make clear—I am not being evasive or trying to elude or escape responsibility—that we have to be very careful about what we are creating with the Bill, understand how it will work in practice, make assessments, and then have a clearer sense of what may be needed and may require to be added in the future. This will also provide an opportunity for areas of concern to emerge and be highlighted, and it may be possible that these can be addressed through other means.
In adopting this approach, we considered the practicalities of extending the covenant duty to further policy areas, and the timelines involved. Any addition to the scope of the duty will require extensive consultation with stakeholders and the devolved Administrations in order to identify the appropriate bodies and functions to bring into scope and to work through any issues arising as a result of different procedures and legal frameworks in devolved policy areas.
I suggest that a better way forward lies in first working through and resolving any practical implications arising as the new covenant duty in the Bill is implemented. This will give us a good indication of where amendments may be required to better meet the changing needs of our Armed Forces community in the future.
By retaining the flexible nature of the legislation, the Government hope to establish a firm legal foundation for the covenant while avoiding any unnecessary administrative burden. The new duty builds on the existing widespread commitment to the covenant, thereby contributing to a further strengthening of covenant delivery across the entire United Kingdom. That is not in any way dodging the bullet. I am not trying to be evasive; I am trying to explain why I think this a sensible and cautious way to proceed, and I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press these amendments.
I turn to Amendment 4, tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and supported by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. The purpose of Amendment 4 is to make central government departments subject to the new covenant duty. This new duty arises when a specified public body exercises a relevant function. Those functions, which are specified in the Bill, are exercised by local authorities and other public bodies, and are not matters for which central government has day-to-day responsibility.
The problem with the amendment as drafted is that it would not, as I far as I can see, serve any identifiable meaningful purpose. I can understand the enthusiasm among opposition Members of this House to land anything they possibly can on the Government. I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay is not motivated by these sentiments and that he genuinely believes that there is an omission here that should be addressed, but I am trying to explain that I am not quite clear what the omission is, and I am certainly not clear how the amendment would address it.
It occurred to me that, in addressing the principle of this amendment, it would be useful to explain the Government’s thinking behind the design of the new covenant duty and how we see it establishing a firm foundation from which to build into the future. I hope noble Lords will indulge me: I will go into this in some detail because my noble and learned friend raises an important issue, and I believe it merits serious discussion and a considered response. I will attempt to give due attention to his amendment.
As I have outlined before, in considering how to take forward our commitment to further strengthen the covenant in law, we looked first at what the covenant has already achieved without being brought into any statutory provision. The considerable number of successful covenant initiatives across many different policy areas shows how the covenant provides a framework through which the widespread admiration and support for our Armed Forces community can flourish, allows scope for innovation and permits future growth. That is why we designed the new covenant duty around the principle of “due regard” as a means of building greater awareness and understanding of the lives of the Armed Forces community, which will bolster, rather than weaken, this support.
We considered carefully which functions and policy areas the covenant duty should encompass, including those that are the responsibility of central government. This required an assessment of the benefits arising from their inclusion, focusing on the purpose of the duty: to raise awareness among providers of public services of how service life can disadvantage the Armed Forces community, and so encourage a more consistent approach across the UK.
We were mindful that central government is responsible for the overall strategic direction for national policy, whereas the responsibility for the delivery of front-line services and their impact generally rests at local level. The Government are fully aware of issues impacting on the Armed Forces community. Indeed, we work with other departments and organisations to raise awareness across all service providers. The inclusion of central government in the scope of the duty was therefore not seen as necessary.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, raised a particular issue with reference to Northern Ireland. The key front-line services we wish to target are generally devolved issues. They are not the responsibility of the Westminster Government, so any additions to the scope of the duty in respect of central government would not address the concern he has but would cause a greater disparity in covenant delivery if the—